Skinny Puppy wrote:

Physician heal thyneself.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Physician heal thyneself.

That image was my ONLY post in this thread so far.

If you wish to critique what was said by Avery Osborn then by all means please do so.

Since it was my ONLY post thus far, I fail to see why you wrote what you did? People hold various opinions and that’s what makes the world go round. We don’t all agree and hopefully many change their opinions when presented with new data, or perhaps, even when old data is presented if by chance they may not have been made aware of it. But here's what has me baffled: Since that was my first post in this thread I am somewhat confused by what you wrote. However, putting that aside for the moment:

May I humbly beg your assistance and tap into your knowledge?

Luke 4:23 (KJV)
And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

Thyself = yourself (Archaic)

Matthew 6:13
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever."

Thine = yours (Archaic)

Now please excuse my out-and-out ignorance, but what does thyneself mean?

'thyneself'?
Obviously a 'stick-insect' curvy model's description of their figure.

Forty Two wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

Forty Two wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

why would what I posted elicit some sort of emotional reaction? I mean, trolling means to purposefully seek to get a rise out of people. What did I post that is so upsetting?

Nothing you post upsets me - it's all too obviously bullshit trolling.

Oh, o..k., then you won't have a problem discussing, instead of moaning about how you think it's trolling. Good deal.

Where was I moaning?
I quite like your trolling and I find your posts very amusing but perhaps not in a way that you'd appreciate.

You harpy.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Physician heal thyneself.

That image was my ONLY post in this thread so far.

If you wish to critique what was said by Avery Osborn then by all means please do so.

Since it was my ONLY post thus far, I fail to see why you wrote what you did? People hold various opinions and that’s what makes the world go round. We don’t all agree and hopefully many change their opinions when presented with new data, or perhaps, even when old data is presented if by chance they may not have been made aware of it. But here's what has me baffled: Since that was my first post in this thread I am somewhat confused by what you wrote. However, putting that aside for the moment:

May I humbly beg your assistance and tap into your knowledge?

Luke 4:23 (KJV)
And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

Thyself = yourself (Archaic)

Matthew 6:13
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever."

Thine = yours (Archaic)

Now please excuse my out-and-out ignorance, but what does thyneself mean?

Yes, it's very important that you bring to the fore the really relevant thing here, which is that Thomas Eshuis spelt something wrong. How's your Dutch?

Fallible wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Physician heal thyneself.

That image was my ONLY post in this thread so far.

If you wish to critique what was said by Avery Osborn then by all means please do so.

Since it was my ONLY post thus far, I fail to see why you wrote what you did? People hold various opinions and that’s what makes the world go round. We don’t all agree and hopefully many change their opinions when presented with new data, or perhaps, even when old data is presented if by chance they may not have been made aware of it. But here's what has me baffled: Since that was my first post in this thread I am somewhat confused by what you wrote. However, putting that aside for the moment:

May I humbly beg your assistance and tap into your knowledge?

Luke 4:23 (KJV)
And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

Thyself = yourself (Archaic)

Matthew 6:13
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever."

Thine = yours (Archaic)

Now please excuse my out-and-out ignorance, but what does thyneself mean?

Yes, it's very important that you bring to the fore the really relevant thing here, which is that Thomas Eshuis spelt something wrong. How's your Dutch?

Once Upon a Time (when I was a boy)...

My ma, back when we lived west of the Pecos, used to have a pie recipe that was the favourite of one and all for miles around. City-slickers had a fancy $2 dollar name for it, but we prairie folk just called it ‘Ma’s Humble Insult Pie’. While it was a closely guarded secret, (it was only published 10X in the local newspaper), I’ll reveal it here for the first time.

‘Ma’s Humble Insult Pie’
• 1 cup of intentional insults
• A target
• ½ teaspoon of “Google” search engine
• 2 cups of the Oxford English Dictionary
• A tablespoon of words and how to properly use them

Use a large bowl (not the one you use for the family haircuts) and stir in the ingredients. Mix until blended and the mixture looks like it might pass for an insult. Careful! Don’t forget to add the 2 cups of dictionary. Put the bowl on the cast iron stove and let it simmer for ½ hour or 30 minutes... whichever comes first. Put the hot bowl by the kitchen window, season to taste, and let it sit until cool.

When sufficiently cool: serve it liberally to your guests. It’s a dish that’s best served cold.

The only time I can recall ma’s recipe failing was when someone forgot to add in the 2 cups of dictionary. That was a sight to behold ‘cause the insult failed and it failed miserably. Ma always used to say to me:

“Son”, she always called me son; which I found rather odd, but I reckon it was ‘cause we were probably related. “Never insult anyone unless you’ve learned how to make my insult pie otherwise it’ll always backfire on you!” She then went on to explain:

“An insult never works when you fuck it up!”

Fucking hell, do you never get tired of writing this unfunny, irrelevant bullcrap? I mean who is supposed to be insulting whom? It's not very clear. Certainly nothing I said even approaches an insult. I merely asked you what your Dutch is like, assuming it must be perfect in order for you to feel justified in picking apart the English of someone who frankly has reached such a level of fluency that it would trick most people into thinking he never spoke anything else. English is not Thomas's first language. It's incredibly petty to criticise the spelling of someone not writing in their native tongue.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Physician heal thyneself.

That image was my ONLY post in this thread so far.

If you wish to critique what was said by Avery Osborn then by all means please do so.

I was being facetious.
A lot of times, people who make such statements don't listen so well themselves and only want the other party to listen, to what they have to say.
Apologies, it wasn't meant as a serious response/criticsm.

Skinny : when someone posts a caption that is non ironic and offers no other opinion for it is natural to assume that anyone reading it might think the opinion expressed in it is one that the poster in question agrees with. Now Thomas does not have telepathic capability so is not to know what your actual opinion on the topic in question is if you have not already posted in the thread [ which you have not ] As it happens I agree with the caption myself so would not have commented as he did but that is academic. But in future if you do not want to be misinterpreted like this again it may be a good idea to elaborate up on your point of view so that understandable confusion can be avoided

Fallible wrote:Fucking hell, do you never get tired of writing this unfunny, irrelevant bullcrap? I mean who is supposed to be insulting whom? It's not very clear. Certainly nothing I said even approaches an insult. I merely asked you what your Dutch is like, assuming it must be perfect in order for you to feel justified in picking apart the English of someone who frankly has reached such a level of fluency that it would trick most people into thinking he never spoke anything else. English is not Thomas's first language. It's incredibly petty to criticise the spelling of someone not writing in their native tongue.

Thanks for the compliment and the valiant defence, but I really don't care that people pick apart my spelling mistakes.
If it's relevant it's a good reminder, if not, it only demonstrates they've got nothing of value to criticise.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Physician heal thyneself.

That image was my ONLY post in this thread so far.

If you wish to critique what was said by Avery Osborn then by all means please do so.

I was being facetious.
A lot of times, people who make such statements don't listen so well themselves and only want the other party to listen, to what they have to say.
Apologies, it wasn't meant as a serious response/criticsm.

I apologize to you too. I agree 100% with what Avery is quoted as saying. While it’s a laudable goal, and one which I’d like to emulate, we’re all human and at times we allow personal feelings to get in the way of 100% objectivity. No one walks on water, but we are all able to learn from others’ ideas and opinions. Even negativism is helpful in shaping our outlook, value system and our ability to discern truth from fallacy.

As has been shown, words simply don’t always convey one’s intent. That’s to be expected since it’s a somewhat limited method of interaction.

Forty Two wrote:Well, curvy women are not generally in lingerie ads for the same reason curvy men are not generally in Calvin Klein ads.

It has nothing to do with being "repulsed" by such a body. Advertising often focuses on sex appeal to sell products. And, men are depicted as very buff, nearly naked, bulging hunks in men's underwear ads, for what should be obvious reasons. Those same reasons apply to women's underwear ads.

it really has nothing to do do with "curvy women" not being "allowed" in lingerie ads. They are "allowed" in such ads. It's not sex discrimination and it's not some particularized wrong against women. Curvy men don't appear in underwear ads either.

The point you missed in your trolling attempt to shoehorn some long dead thread into a point you'd like to make but apparently can't do on your own or with any relevant topic is that this was not about curvy women not being allowed in such ads. They were in fact "allowed" in such an ad. The ad was made with curvy woman. If you bothered to read the OP you would have seen that.

The issue is that TV networks allegedly refused to air the ads. And while TV networks are generally not required to air any ad that somebody would like to run they also don't generally discriminate on the basis of whether they think the ad is effective or not. That is usually only reserved for when they think an ad is offensive or might upset viewers. That is where the problem is; that body types which don't conform to traditional advertising standards for attractiveness are being treated as offensive material. It's no different than if a TV network refused to air an ad with black people because they thought it might be offensive to their audience.

Emmeline wrote:

Forty Two wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

Forty Two wrote:

why would what I posted elicit some sort of emotional reaction? I mean, trolling means to purposefully seek to get a rise out of people. What did I post that is so upsetting?

Nothing you post upsets me - it's all too obviously bullshit trolling.

Oh, o..k., then you won't have a problem discussing, instead of moaning about how you think it's trolling. Good deal.

Where was I moaning?

In your post. I was using the term "moan" figuratively, since we are engaged in a written discussion. That's how your post came across.

Emmeline wrote:
I quite like your trolling and I find your posts very amusing but perhaps not in a way that you'd appreciate.

I'm not trolling, and I find your posts contribute essentially nothing to the discussion. They just distract and derail.

Fallible wrote:

Yes, it's very important that you bring to the fore the really relevant thing here, which is that Thomas Eshuis spelt something wrong. How's your Dutch?

Oh, yes, because Skinny Puppy is the only person who posted something irrelevant to this thread since it was reanimated.... he crossed the line.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Physician heal thyneself.

That image was my ONLY post in this thread so far.

If you wish to critique what was said by Avery Osborn then by all means please do so.

I was being facetious.
A lot of times, people who make such statements don't listen so well themselves and only want the other party to listen, to what they have to say.
Apologies, it wasn't meant as a serious response/criticsm.

You don't say! You mean...there are people here who don't listen so well themselves, Thomas Eshuis, and they, Thomas, only want the other party to listen to what they have to say, Thomas? I hadn't noticed.....

Forty Two wrote:
You don't say! You mean...there are people here who don't listen so well themselves, Thomas Eshuis, and they, Thomas, only want the other party to listen to what they have to say, Thomas? I hadn't noticed.....

Probably because you are too busy digging up old threads to make comments that have nothing to do with the topic itself.

purplerat wrote:

The point you missed in your trolling attempt to shoehorn some long dead thread into a point you'd like to make but apparently can't do on your own or with any relevant topic is that this was not about curvy women not being allowed in such ads. They were in fact "allowed" in such an ad. The ad was made with curvy woman. If you bothered to read the OP you would have seen that.

Trolling attempt? How does what I posted amount to "trolling?" Trolling is when people post purposefully inflammatory stuff in order to get a rise out of people. Who in the world would be upset by or be "gotten a rise out of" by anything I've posted to this thread?

If are are complaining that the posts I made addressed the tangential issue of curvy women in ads in general, rather than whether the network aired the curvy woman ad from the OP, sure, you are correct. The issue I was talking about was tangential and not directly on point with the OP. So what? Looking around this message board, that happens all the time, and many folks have just followed me around to post irrelevant crap in response to my posts -- I've seen no practice here on this forum to prevent people from posting wholly and completely irrelevant bollocks on threads, much less material which is at least tangentially relevant.

So, here's the long and short of this. You were not posting on this thread, which was long dead. I posted a tangentially relevant post about curvy women and curvy men in ads, to a long-dead thread about curvy women lingerie ads. You then saw that this thread was there, and you clicked on it and read. You became so incensed at what you say as my "trolling" -- posting something you don't feel is sufficiently relevant to to the thread. So, now you're bitching about it? To what end? Do you want me to stop posting in this thread? Do you want everyone to stop posting in this thread? Do you want my posts to be split off into a new thread, so that the conversation in this long dead thread, which wasn't continuing and which you were not participating in, can continue?

Honestly, I don't get what you're on about. You apparently think I've said something wrong. What, exactly? What do you want me to stop doing?

purplerat wrote:

The issue is that TV networks allegedly refused to air the ads. And while TV networks are generally not required to air any ad that somebody would like to run they also don't generally discriminate on the basis of whether they think the ad is effective or not. That is usually only reserved for when they think an ad is offensive or might upset viewers. That is where the problem is; that body types which don't conform to traditional advertising standards for attractiveness are being treated as offensive material. It's no different than if a TV network refused to air an ad with black people because they thought it might be offensive to their audience.

Sure, and I did explain when asked previously why I posted the tangential post here, and I mentioned that I had done so because it didn't seem like it warranted a whole new thread. I figured I'd search for something that already existed, as I suspected there would be previous conversations about this topic. So, I posted it here, in a long dead thread, figuring it might spark some conversation.

You don't like that. You are upset because I posted something not 100% related to the original OP. Fine. If it's such a derail that the mods think it warrants a thread-split, then they'll do it. Report my posts as a derail. I'll happily consent to them being split off.

But for the love of everything, can you please just calm down and relax. Every flippin' thread I go to on this forum is filled with nonsequiturs and side discussions, humorous images and comments - fun little sidesteps of conversation. Some work, some don't. Some are funny, some aren't. Some are interesting; some aren't. Opinions vary.

But if you're going to harp on me for going on a tangent in this thread, would it be too much to ask if you also police the posts of other members? I'll also be looking out for your posts, and I'll make sure to bring to your attention every post that you make that is not 100% directed toward the OP. If you derail, talk about something not directly related to the OP, post some collateral material that you think is funny or interesting -- if it doesn't go to the heart of the OP on that particular thread, I'll be letting you hear about it.

Thanks and have a good day.

So basically your whole point of resurrecting an old thread was because you felt people needed to know that advertisers prefer skinny models to fat models? FFS, if that's all it is then I've been giving you too much credit.

BTW, why are you projecting all this angst and emotion on to everybody else? Who here has responded angrily or said they were emotional?

Or is that just a defense mechanism for you when somebody makes a point either you are uncomfortable with or can't address, to accuse the other side of being overly emotional or "flipping out"?