Discussion:
our list of 100 unsexiest women
(too old to reply)
RSF Group
2006-05-05 05:18:19 UTC
Permalink
sarah jessica parker
sandra oh
that jewish female writer who looks like a cross between oscar wilde
and harpo marx
oprah or ape-rah
yoko ono
whoopie goldberg
eleanor clift
helen thomas
betty friedan
bella abzug
andrea dworkin
whitney houston
urethra franklin
hillary clinton cold bitch
margaret cho
lucy piu
pink
christina agorilla
madonna since her poon turned to mush thanks to nba negroes
diane keaton sappy eyed ditz
mia farrow skullheadwoman
that brunette big nosed woman in being john malkovich(why does she keep
getting roles?)
teri garr
barbara boxer
toni morrison who be uglier than esther
sally struthers
jennifer jones (never understood her snub nosed appeal)
juliette lewis white trash queen
rosie o donnell
ellen degenerate
lillian hellman
julianne moore the most annoying twad there be
lily tyler of chimp face tribe
sandra bernhardt (woah!)
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
2006-05-05 05:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by RSF Group
sarah jessica parker
sandra oh
that jewish female writer who looks like a cross between oscar wilde
and harpo marx
oprah or ape-rah
yoko ono
whoopie goldberg
eleanor clift
helen thomas
betty friedan
bella abzug
andrea dworkin
whitney houston
urethra franklin
hillary clinton cold bitch
margaret cho
lucy piu
pink
christina agorilla
madonna since her poon turned to mush thanks to nba negroes
diane keaton sappy eyed ditz
mia farrow skullheadwoman
that brunette big nosed woman in being john malkovich(why does she keep
getting roles?)
teri garr
barbara boxer
toni morrison who be uglier than esther
sally struthers
jennifer jones (never understood her snub nosed appeal)
juliette lewis white trash queen
rosie o donnell
ellen degenerate
lillian hellman
julianne moore the most annoying twad there be
lily tyler of chimp face tribe
sandra bernhardt (woah!)
And yet Tony, none of them would have you. Most notably because you
can only count to 35.
Wull
2006-05-05 05:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Ha Ha Ha
But the list of 35 is a pretty good one.
One person in the list is not an ugly woman and I do not even think about
the looks of black women, Whitney Houston
In her place I would add Barbra Streisand.
In her younger days, Jones was an attractive woman.

Wull
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter.
Post by RSF Group
sarah jessica parker
sandra oh
that jewish female writer who looks like a cross between oscar wilde
and harpo marx
oprah or ape-rah
yoko ono
whoopie goldberg
eleanor clift
helen thomas
betty friedan
bella abzug
andrea dworkin
whitney houston
urethra franklin
hillary clinton cold bitch
margaret cho
lucy piu
pink
christina agorilla
madonna since her poon turned to mush thanks to nba negroes
diane keaton sappy eyed ditz
mia farrow skullheadwoman
that brunette big nosed woman in being john malkovich(why does she keep
getting roles?)
teri garr
barbara boxer
toni morrison who be uglier than esther
sally struthers
jennifer jones (never understood her snub nosed appeal)
juliette lewis white trash queen
rosie o donnell
ellen degenerate
lillian hellman
julianne moore the most annoying twad there be
lily tyler of chimp face tribe
sandra bernhardt (woah!)
And yet Tony, none of them would have you. Most notably because you
can only count to 35.
Turo Juurakko
2006-05-05 06:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by RSF Group
sarah jessica parker
...
Post by RSF Group
lucy piu
...
Post by RSF Group
that brunette big nosed woman in being john malkovich(why does she keep
getting roles?)
...
Post by RSF Group
julianne moore the most annoying twad there be
You have no taste.

That "brunette" gave me a hard on in "Being John Malkovich"...
Grant Hurlock
2006-05-05 11:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by RSF Group
sandra bernhardt (woah!)
Well, I just watched Freaks on TCM, so I'd add the distaff cast of that
(plus a couple of the indeterminate players). I'd except Leila Hyams, as
Venus, of course--and one of the siamese twins was rather demurely lovely.

(Also, in exception to the original list, I found Sandra Bernhard quite
hot in King of Comedy.)
Mike
2006-05-05 12:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by RSF Group
that brunette big nosed woman in being john malkovich(why does she keep
getting roles?)
juliette lewis white trash queen
Most of your list is spot-on, but I disagree with the 2 listed above.
The brunette chick was also in "40 Year Old Virgin" (I think). She's
somehow cute. And Juliette Lewis was oddly attractive in "Natural Born
Killers".
John Harkness
2006-05-05 12:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by RSF Group
that brunette big nosed woman in being john malkovich(why does she keep
getting roles?)
juliette lewis white trash queen
Most of your list is spot-on, but I disagree with the 2 listed above.
The brunette chick was also in "40 Year Old Virgin" (I think). She's
somehow cute. And Juliette Lewis was oddly attractive in "Natural Born
Killers".
Catherine Keener. Two time Oscar nominee Catherine Keener, come to
think of it.

ever seen Quentin Tarantino's Juliette Lewis impression it's brutally
funny and accurate.

John Harkness
Your Pal Brian
2006-05-05 18:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Harkness
Post by Mike
Post by RSF Group
that brunette big nosed woman in being john malkovich(why does she keep
getting roles?)
Most of your list is spot-on, but I disagree with the 2 listed above.
The brunette chick was also in "40 Year Old Virgin" (I think). She's
somehow cute.
Catherine Keener. Two time Oscar nominee Catherine Keener, come to
think of it.
And a very sexy broad indeed. Add three points for attitude, prolly four.

Brian
G*rd*n
2006-05-05 13:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Troll.
Post by RSF Group
sarah jessica parker
sandra oh
that jewish female writer who looks like a cross between oscar wilde
and harpo marx
oprah or ape-rah
yoko ono
whoopie goldberg
eleanor clift
helen thomas
betty friedan
bella abzug
andrea dworkin
whitney houston
urethra franklin
hillary clinton cold bitch
margaret cho
lucy piu
pink
christina agorilla
madonna since her poon turned to mush thanks to nba negroes
diane keaton sappy eyed ditz
mia farrow skullheadwoman
that brunette big nosed woman in being john malkovich(why does she keep
getting roles?)
teri garr
barbara boxer
toni morrison who be uglier than esther
sally struthers
jennifer jones (never understood her snub nosed appeal)
juliette lewis white trash queen
rosie o donnell
ellen degenerate
lillian hellman
julianne moore the most annoying twad there be
lily tyler of chimp face tribe
sandra bernhardt (woah!)
Kingo Gondo
2006-05-05 13:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by RSF Group
madonna since her poon turned to mush thanks to nba negroes
Ah, Gaza, you'll never change--you still have mommy issues.
RSF Group
2006-05-05 17:00:06 UTC
Permalink
what? you mean you liked it when your ma brought five negroes to your
trailerhome and did em all night? that's some sick sight no one oughta
see.
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
2006-05-05 17:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by RSF Group
what? you mean you liked it when your ma brought five negroes to your
trailerhome and did em all night? that's some sick sight no one oughta
see.
Why didn't you just go to a friend's house?
Joan in GB-W
2006-05-05 20:26:36 UTC
Permalink
My, isn't someone in an ugly and cruel mood today.

Do us a favor. Since you signature indicates a group, please post your
pictures for our review.

Joan
Post by RSF Group
sarah jessica parker
sandra oh
that jewish female writer who looks like a cross between oscar wilde
and harpo marx
oprah or ape-rah
yoko ono
whoopie goldberg
eleanor clift
helen thomas
betty friedan
bella abzug
andrea dworkin
whitney houston
urethra franklin
hillary clinton cold bitch
margaret cho
lucy piu
pink
christina agorilla
madonna since her poon turned to mush thanks to nba negroes
diane keaton sappy eyed ditz
mia farrow skullheadwoman
that brunette big nosed woman in being john malkovich(why does she keep
getting roles?)
teri garr
barbara boxer
toni morrison who be uglier than esther
sally struthers
jennifer jones (never understood her snub nosed appeal)
juliette lewis white trash queen
rosie o donnell
ellen degenerate
lillian hellman
julianne moore the most annoying twad there be
lily tyler of chimp face tribe
sandra bernhardt (woah!)
laraine
2006-05-06 20:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joan in GB-W
My, isn't someone in an ugly and cruel mood today.
Do us a favor. Since you signature indicates a group, please post your
pictures for our review.
Joan
You're right--this is very not cool at all.

Maybe they were rejected by
someone like Oprah.

C.
xyz
2006-05-06 21:32:06 UTC
Permalink
I am tired of hearing SJP is not attractive. Meet, then open your mouth
Sawfish
2006-05-07 17:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by xyz
I am tired of hearing SJP is not attractive. Meet, then open your mouth
Clearly, she is not photogenic. But there's a hell of a lot more to
attractiveness than looking good in 2 dimensions.

I just don't know if it can overcome her looks...
Steven L.
2006-05-05 22:21:27 UTC
Permalink
....
How could you POSSIBLY leave out:
Janeane Garofalo
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Calvin Rice
2006-05-06 00:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Angelina Jolie. Yeah, I know, she's supposed to be the sexiest
thing that ever lived. I think she's revolting, and isn't remotely as
'hot' as Sophia Loren was in her prime.
George Peatty
2006-05-06 15:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Calvin Rice
Angelina Jolie. Yeah, I know, she's supposed to be the sexiest
thing that ever lived. I think she's revolting, and isn't remotely as
'hot' as Sophia Loren was in her prime.
I came around in a manner of speaking after seeing Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but
you're right: today's women can't hold a candle to the beauties of the 50's
and 60's: Monroe, Loren, Ava Gardner, Ursula Undress (I mean, Andress ..)
Heck, the second team with the likes of Kim Novak, Joan Collins, and Yvonne
de Carlo is better than any set of beauties you can name today ..











__

This space left blank

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Charles Rogan
2006-05-06 15:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Calvin Rice
Angelina Jolie. Yeah, I know, she's supposed to be the sexiest
thing that ever lived. I think she's revolting, and isn't remotely as
'hot' as Sophia Loren was in her prime.
I came around in a manner of speaking after seeing Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but
you're right: today's women can't hold a candle to the beauties of the 50's
and 60's: Monroe, Loren, Ava Gardner, Ursula Undress (I mean, Andress ..)
Heck, the second team with the likes of Kim Novak, Joan Collins, and Yvonne
de Carlo is better than any set of beauties you can name today ..
One of the best comments I've seen on here since I signed up!
Post by George Peatty
__
This space left blank
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Alan Hope
2006-05-06 16:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Rogan
Post by George Peatty
Post by Calvin Rice
Angelina Jolie. Yeah, I know, she's supposed to be the sexiest
thing that ever lived. I think she's revolting, and isn't remotely as
'hot' as Sophia Loren was in her prime.
I came around in a manner of speaking after seeing Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but
you're right: today's women can't hold a candle to the beauties of the 50's
and 60's: Monroe, Loren, Ava Gardner, Ursula Undress (I mean, Andress ..)
Heck, the second team with the likes of Kim Novak, Joan Collins, and Yvonne
de Carlo is better than any set of beauties you can name today ..
One of the best comments I've seen on here since I signed up!
You signed up to Usenet? Where?
--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com
Charles Rogan
2006-05-06 16:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Not Usenet, but since I started posting at this group back in December.
Alan Hope
2006-05-06 18:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Rogan
Not Usenet, but since I started posting at this group back in December.
"This group" is one of the five you're posting to.

I'd still like to know how you signed up to whichever one it is.
--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com
Your Pal Brian
2006-05-06 21:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Charles Rogan
Not Usenet, but since I started posting at this group back in December.
"This group" is one of the five you're posting to.
I'd still like to know how you signed up to whichever one it is.
I would imagine he went to a list of groups in his newsreader, clicked
"subscribe" next to this one, then downloaded the posts.

Brian
Alan Hope
2006-05-06 23:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Pal Brian
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Charles Rogan
Not Usenet, but since I started posting at this group back in December.
"This group" is one of the five you're posting to.
I'd still like to know how you signed up to whichever one it is.
I would imagine he went to a list of groups in his newsreader, clicked
"subscribe" next to this one, then downloaded the posts.
Okay.

So I suppose that means I signed up to The Economist today, at the
paper-shop.
--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com
Your Pal Brian
2006-05-06 23:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Your Pal Brian
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Charles Rogan
Not Usenet, but since I started posting at this group back in December.
"This group" is one of the five you're posting to.
I'd still like to know how you signed up to whichever one it is.
I would imagine he went to a list of groups in his newsreader, clicked
"subscribe" next to this one, then downloaded the posts.
Okay.
So I suppose that means I signed up to The Economist today, at the
paper-shop.
What the fucking fuck is your fucking problem you fucking fuck?

Brian
John Harkness
2006-05-06 23:29:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 May 2006 23:18:07 GMT, Your Pal Brian
Post by Your Pal Brian
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Your Pal Brian
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Charles Rogan
Not Usenet, but since I started posting at this group back in December.
"This group" is one of the five you're posting to.
I'd still like to know how you signed up to whichever one it is.
I would imagine he went to a list of groups in his newsreader, clicked
"subscribe" next to this one, then downloaded the posts.
Okay.
So I suppose that means I signed up to The Economist today, at the
paper-shop.
What the fucking fuck is your fucking problem you fucking fuck?
Brian
Hmmmm....

I think we're discussing David Mamet in another thread.

John Harkness
Alan Hope
2006-05-07 08:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Pal Brian
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Your Pal Brian
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Charles Rogan
Not Usenet, but since I started posting at this group back in December.
"This group" is one of the five you're posting to.
I'd still like to know how you signed up to whichever one it is.
I would imagine he went to a list of groups in his newsreader, clicked
"subscribe" next to this one, then downloaded the posts.
Okay.
So I suppose that means I signed up to The Economist today, at the
paper-shop.
What the fucking fuck is your fucking problem you fucking fuck?
What's it to you?
--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com
David Oberman
2006-05-07 16:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Your Pal Brian
Post by Alan Hope
So I suppose that means I signed up to The Economist today, at the
paper-shop.
What the fucking fuck is your fucking problem you fucking fuck?
What's it to you?
Cut out the sass & answer him when he asks you a question.
Tom Zielinski
2006-05-08 16:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Charles Rogan
One of the best comments I've seen on here since I signed up!
You signed up to Usenet? Where?
Wal-Mart.
John Harkness
2006-05-06 19:25:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 May 2006 11:23:44 -0400, George Peatty
Post by George Peatty
Post by Calvin Rice
Angelina Jolie. Yeah, I know, she's supposed to be the sexiest
thing that ever lived. I think she's revolting, and isn't remotely as
'hot' as Sophia Loren was in her prime.
I came around in a manner of speaking after seeing Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but
you're right: today's women can't hold a candle to the beauties of the 50's
and 60's: Monroe, Loren, Ava Gardner, Ursula Undress (I mean, Andress ..)
Heck, the second team with the likes of Kim Novak, Joan Collins, and Yvonne
de Carlo is better than any set of beauties you can name today ..
If there were an industry today that was devoted to making today's
stars look as glamourous as the stars did in the past, They most
certainly would.

the 40s and 50s offered a very different style of feminine beauty and
a very different style of glamour photorgraphy. So you're basically
saying that oranges taste better than apples.

Having seen Wynona Ryder, Amy Irving, and Charlize Theron up close,
I'd say you're turned your own responses into some sort of factual
assertion.

John Harkness
George Peatty
2006-05-06 21:40:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 May 2006 15:25:02 -0400, John Harkness <***@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

[snip]
Post by John Harkness
Having seen Wynona Ryder, Amy Irving, and Charlize Theron up close,
I'd say you're turned your own responses into some sort of factual
assertion.
I'll give you Ryder and Theron, who have beautiful faces. I'd add Scarlett
Johansson to the list in place of Irving. While there is no arguing taste
(in a sense *all* such discussions are apples and oranges), I will have you
know that I have some 40,000 pictures of actresses from every Hollywood era,
so I have a fair amount of evidence on which to base a comparison. I still
think Calvin is right: the old stars were prettier. The studio publicity
mills are certainly a factor in that judgment, but not a deciding factor ..











__

This space left blank

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
David Oberman
2006-05-06 23:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
I'll give you Ryder and Theron, who have beautiful faces. I'd add Scarlett
Johansson to the list in place of Irving. While there is no arguing taste
(in a sense *all* such discussions are apples and oranges), I will have you
know that I have some 40,000 pictures of actresses from every Hollywood era,
so I have a fair amount of evidence on which to base a comparison. I still
think Calvin is right: the old stars were prettier.
They were certainly dressed better. The elegance & line of the haute
couture glory years are roughly parallel with the Hollywood Golden
Age. Today is certainly not a couture high point; you'd be a ditz to
argue that it is. Lanvin, Chanel, Dior, Balmain--most of these
companies still design, but their designers from fifty years ago (who
are now dead) were greater artists, & the old movie stars were
longtime customers (& the studio contract designers definitely copied
the Paris houses). The change since the 1970s may be a result of the
inevitable move from custom clothing to ready-to-wear & stuff like
perfume licensing (which is where the money is today). But obviously
custom has evolved, too. It's been fashionable for about forty years
now to look like a shlub (whereas before it may have been "cool" &
anti-establishment to look like one but not fashionable).

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2006-05-07 00:00:36 UTC
Permalink
David Oberman wrote:

[deletion]
Post by David Oberman
They were certainly dressed better. The elegance & line of the haute
couture glory years are roughly parallel with the Hollywood Golden
Age. Today is certainly not a couture high point; you'd be a ditz to
argue that it is. Lanvin, Chanel, Dior, Balmain--most of these
companies still design, but their designers from fifty years ago (who
are now dead) were greater artists, & the old movie stars were
longtime customers (& the studio contract designers definitely copied
the Paris houses). The change since the 1970s may be a result of the
inevitable move from custom clothing to ready-to-wear & stuff like
perfume licensing (which is where the money is today). But obviously
custom has evolved, too. It's been fashionable for about forty years
now to look like a shlub (whereas before it may have been "cool" &
anti-establishment to look like one but not fashionable).
[deletion]

http://www.vintagehollywood.net/2002/lombard.jpg

[deletion]

Actually, the coolest, sexiest picture I've ever seen of Lombard is one of
her and Gable. She's wearing a man's shirt and jeans and standing next to
their woody stationwagon. She looks so fresh, so natural, so damn happy and
healthy that it like to break your heart.

The picture of Lombard and a horse reminds me that after she died Gable had
to get rid of a horse that she used to ride and was quite fond of. It
reminded him too much of her. At the time my father was connected to the
Hollywood crowd through the racehorses he owned and trained. Gable gave the
horse away and it wound up in my dad's possession. He boarded it north of
Seattle.

When I was born, it became my horse and until we left the Seattle area at
the end of the 40s they'd take me out to ride it. I do not actually remember
any of this, btw, but got it from my mom.

I do have a photo, which I've never scanned, of me and Penny Singleton in
the winner's circle with one of our horses. She's holding me up to the
flower horseshoe around the horse's neck.
--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
David Oberman
2006-05-07 01:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Oberman
http://www.vintagehollywood.net/2002/lombard.jpg
The picture of Lombard and a horse reminds me that after she died Gable had
to get rid of a horse that she used to ride and was quite fond of. It
reminded him too much of her. At the time my father was connected to the
Hollywood crowd through the racehorses he owned and trained. Gable gave the
horse away and it wound up in my dad's possession. He boarded it north of
Seattle.
When I was born, it became my horse and until we left the Seattle area at
the end of the 40s they'd take me out to ride it.
You're kidding! Could that horse in the pic be the same horse? that
looks like a shot of Lombard in '40 or '41.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2006-05-07 01:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Oberman
Post by David Oberman
http://www.vintagehollywood.net/2002/lombard.jpg
The picture of Lombard and a horse reminds me that after she died
Gable had to get rid of a horse that she used to ride and was quite
fond of. It reminded him too much of her. At the time my father was
connected to the Hollywood crowd through the racehorses he owned and
trained. Gable gave the horse away and it wound up in my dad's
possession. He boarded it north of Seattle.
When I was born, it became my horse and until we left the Seattle
area at the end of the 40s they'd take me out to ride it.
You're kidding! Could that horse in the pic be the same horse? that
looks like a shot of Lombard in '40 or '41.
That's what I'm thinking, but there's no way I say yea or nay. I *think* I
have squirreled away amongst my late mother's effect of photo of the horse
but I'm really not in the mood to poke around in them to see if I could find
it.
--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
Avoid normal situations.
2006-05-29 13:12:44 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
The picture of Lombard and a horse reminds me that after she died Gable had
to get rid of a horse that she used to ride and was quite fond of. It
reminded him too much of her. At the time my father was connected to the
Hollywood crowd through the racehorses he owned and trained. Gable gave the
horse away and it wound up in my dad's possession. He boarded it north of
Seattle.
When I was born, it became my horse and until we left the Seattle area at
the end of the 40s they'd take me out to ride it. I do not actually remember
any of this, btw, but got it from my mom.
I do have a photo, which I've never scanned, of me and Penny Singleton in
the winner's circle with one of our horses. She's holding me up to the
flower horseshoe around the horse's neck.
Wow.

Thanks for sharing.

--
alt.flame Special Forces
"I've been shot and missed so often I've a notion to hire out as a
professional target. Life with me is just one bullet after another."
-- Edward "Spike" O'Donnell
George Peatty
2006-05-07 00:29:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 May 2006 23:07:41 GMT, David Oberman
Post by David Oberman
http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Dietrich,%20Marlene/Annex/Annex%20-%20Dietrich,%20Marlene_01.jpg
http://www.vintagehollywood.net/2002/lombard.jpg
http://members.tripod.com/~pvillafl/lombard/lombard12.gif
http://classicmoviefavorites.com/lombard/lombard108.jpg
http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/celebrity/images/Movie/loy-picturegoer.JPG
http://www.odarainternet.com.br/supers/cinema/imagens/gal-hedy-lamarr.jpg
http://www.robertkleingallery.com/gallery/albums/album42/aaa.jpg
Haute couture was a way of life for the old stars; for today's stars, it's
done only for special occasions (like awards ceremonies). I agree with your
argument, except for the part where you say haute couture is dead today. On
life support, perhaps, but not dead.

Thanks for the wonderful pictures, none of which I had. If you would see a
sample of my galleries, go here:

http://sonofmoog.tripod.com/











__

This space left blank
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Forge
2006-05-07 04:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Harkness
Post by George Peatty
I came around in a manner of speaking after seeing Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but
you're right: today's women can't hold a candle to the beauties of the 50's
and 60's: Monroe, Loren, Ava Gardner, Ursula Undress (I mean, Andress ..)
Heck, the second team with the likes of Kim Novak, Joan Collins, and Yvonne
de Carlo is better than any set of beauties you can name today ..
If there were an industry today that was devoted to making today's
stars look as glamourous as the stars did in the past, They most
certainly would.
Scarlett Johansson is every bit as elegant and glamorous as the
goddesses of the past. She's a pretty special case though.
David Oberman
2006-05-07 05:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Forge
Scarlett Johansson is every bit as elegant and glamorous as the
goddesses of the past. She's a pretty special case though.
I don't know who the hell that is, so I did a Google image search.
Hmm. . . pretty in some shots, sort of horsey in others. I'll rent
some Netflix movies with her to see how she does. I'll let you know
whether I think she looks like Hedy Lamarr after watching them.
larry legallo
2006-05-09 21:41:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 May 2006 05:31:14 GMT, David Oberman
Post by David Oberman
Post by Forge
Scarlett Johansson is every bit as elegant and glamorous as the
goddesses of the past. She's a pretty special case though.
I don't know who the hell that is, so I did a Google image search.
Hmm. . . pretty in some shots, sort of horsey in others.
Haven't you heard? The pretty/horsey dichotomy is in! Julia Roberts,
Sarah Jessica Parker, Liv Tyler, Anne Hathaway- they could all be
saddled up, from certain angles. Hey, maybe it's time to reconsider
Edna May Oliver?

Anyway, Scarlett's a doll. Here's a good pic from a recent awards
show after-party. She didn't win anything, but she brought her Golden
Globes anyway:

Loading Image...
Post by David Oberman
I'll rent
some Netflix movies with her to see how she does. I'll let you know
whether I think she looks like Hedy Lamarr after watching them.
You haven't seen Ghost World or Lost in Translation yet? Get on it,
man.
David Oberman
2006-05-09 21:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by larry legallo
Anyway, Scarlett's a doll. Here's a good pic from a recent awards
show after-party. She didn't win anything, but she brought her Golden
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/6003/scarlettglobesparty44jb.jpg
Hmm... the hair needs work, the skin--particularly the forehead--needs
abrasion, the lower lip needs less botox, the center brows need
plucking, a few teeth need bonds or caps, the dress is trash & the
boobs are just perfect!
Post by larry legallo
You haven't seen Ghost World or Lost in Translation yet? Get on it,
man.
No, but I saw The Village. I turned off the TV saying, "Blood, blood
... I want more blood."
Forge
2006-05-10 09:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Oberman
Hmm... the hair needs work, the skin--particularly the forehead--needs
abrasion, the lower lip needs less botox, the center brows need
plucking, a few teeth need bonds or caps, the dress is trash & the
boobs are just perfect!
Mote, plank.
George Peatty
2006-05-09 22:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by larry legallo
Anyway, Scarlett's a doll. Here's a good pic from a recent awards
show after-party. She didn't win anything, but she brought her Golden
Adding to her beauty and her aura is how straight her head is on .. She is
emotionally mature beyond her years, and has not been cajoled into believing
her own publicity .. "Sexiest woman in the world" - according to some, and
modest about it, a combination lethal enough to charm any man ..











__

This space left blank
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Howard Brazee
2006-05-07 01:20:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 May 2006 11:23:44 -0400, George Peatty
Post by George Peatty
I came around in a manner of speaking after seeing Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but
you're right: today's women can't hold a candle to the beauties of the 50's
and 60's: Monroe, Loren, Ava Gardner, Ursula Undress (I mean, Andress ..)
Heck, the second team with the likes of Kim Novak, Joan Collins, and Yvonne
de Carlo is better than any set of beauties you can name today ..
Of course. All of the standards of beauty, whether they are women,
music, paintings, or whatever that I learned as a teen are the *real*
ones. The kids of today are simply wrong.
George Peatty
2006-05-07 03:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
Of course. All of the standards of beauty, whether they are women,
music, paintings, or whatever that I learned as a teen are the *real*
ones. The kids of today are simply wrong.
I saw a thread in one of the binary newsgroups for some pics of Avril
Lavigne, announcing her as the hottest woman on the planet. Uh-hunh. I
hear (and read) them rave about some twenty-something's great good looks,
and then I look at the pictures...

Kids today are like kids anytime: they think anything that happened before
they were born is irrelevant and unimportant, and somehow not as good or
interesting or fulfilling as what they have. Those who hold that notion are
wrong.











__

This space left blank

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Simon
2006-05-07 04:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Howard Brazee
Of course. All of the standards of beauty, whether they are women,
music, paintings, or whatever that I learned as a teen are the *real*
ones. The kids of today are simply wrong.
I saw a thread in one of the binary newsgroups for some pics of Avril
Lavigne, announcing her as the hottest woman on the planet. Uh-hunh. I
hear (and read) them rave about some twenty-something's great good looks,
and then I look at the pictures...
Kids today are like kids anytime: they think anything that happened before
they were born is irrelevant and unimportant, and somehow not as good or
interesting or fulfilling as what they have. Those who hold that notion are
wrong.
yes, but then again, many older folks look at the past with rose coloured
spectacles and think that anything "modern" is automatically rubbish. no
sense of balance either way. truth is that beauty is in the eye of the
beholder anyway but, that said, there have always been beauties and hags and
everything in between...and always will be.
Sawfish
2006-05-07 17:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon
Post by George Peatty
Post by Howard Brazee
Of course. All of the standards of beauty, whether they are women,
music, paintings, or whatever that I learned as a teen are the *real*
ones. The kids of today are simply wrong.
I saw a thread in one of the binary newsgroups for some pics of Avril
Lavigne, announcing her as the hottest woman on the planet. Uh-hunh. I
hear (and read) them rave about some twenty-something's great good looks,
and then I look at the pictures...
Kids today are like kids anytime: they think anything that happened before
they were born is irrelevant and unimportant, and somehow not as good or
interesting or fulfilling as what they have. Those who hold that notion are
wrong.
yes, but then again, many older folks look at the past with rose coloured
spectacles and think that anything "modern" is automatically rubbish. no
sense of balance either way. truth is that beauty is in the eye of the
beholder anyway but, that said, there have always been beauties and hags and
everything in between...and always will be.
In my view that's exactly right. And each succeeding age has its
attractive traits and its repulsive ones. For Gen-X, the detached humor is
superb, but the passivism bordering on defeatism is annoying. For Boomers,
they're (or were) energetic and can-do, but among the most arrogant and
hypocritical of any group to have walked the earth.
George Peatty
2006-05-07 17:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sawfish
In my view that's exactly right. And each succeeding age has its
attractive traits and its repulsive ones. For Gen-X, the detached humor is
superb, but the passivism bordering on defeatism is annoying. For Boomers,
they're (or were) energetic and can-do, but among the most arrogant and
hypocritical of any group to have walked the earth.
You talkin' to me? ;)

(Well said)











__

This space left blank

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
John Harkness
2006-05-07 18:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sawfish
Post by Simon
Post by George Peatty
Post by Howard Brazee
Of course. All of the standards of beauty, whether they are women,
music, paintings, or whatever that I learned as a teen are the *real*
ones. The kids of today are simply wrong.
I saw a thread in one of the binary newsgroups for some pics of Avril
Lavigne, announcing her as the hottest woman on the planet. Uh-hunh. I
hear (and read) them rave about some twenty-something's great good looks,
and then I look at the pictures...
Kids today are like kids anytime: they think anything that happened before
they were born is irrelevant and unimportant, and somehow not as good or
interesting or fulfilling as what they have. Those who hold that notion are
wrong.
yes, but then again, many older folks look at the past with rose coloured
spectacles and think that anything "modern" is automatically rubbish. no
sense of balance either way. truth is that beauty is in the eye of the
beholder anyway but, that said, there have always been beauties and hags and
everything in between...and always will be.
In my view that's exactly right. And each succeeding age has its
attractive traits and its repulsive ones. For Gen-X, the detached humor is
superb, but the passivism bordering on defeatism is annoying. For Boomers,
they're (or were) energetic and can-do, but among the most arrogant and
hypocritical of any group to have walked the earth.
And damned proud of it, bitch.

John Harkness
*Anarcissie*
2006-05-07 19:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sawfish
Post by Simon
Post by George Peatty
Post by Howard Brazee
Of course. All of the standards of beauty, whether they are women,
music, paintings, or whatever that I learned as a teen are the *real*
ones. The kids of today are simply wrong.
I saw a thread in one of the binary newsgroups for some pics of Avril
Lavigne, announcing her as the hottest woman on the planet. Uh-hunh. I
hear (and read) them rave about some twenty-something's great good looks,
and then I look at the pictures...
Kids today are like kids anytime: they think anything that happened before
they were born is irrelevant and unimportant, and somehow not as good or
interesting or fulfilling as what they have. Those who hold that notion are
wrong.
yes, but then again, many older folks look at the past with rose coloured
spectacles and think that anything "modern" is automatically rubbish. no
sense of balance either way. truth is that beauty is in the eye of the
beholder anyway but, that said, there have always been beauties and hags and
everything in between...and always will be.
In my view that's exactly right. And each succeeding age has its
attractive traits and its repulsive ones. For Gen-X, the detached humor is
superb, but the passivism bordering on defeatism is annoying. For Boomers,
they're (or were) energetic and can-do, but among the most arrogant and
hypocritical of any group to have walked the earth.
This Boomer / Gen-X stuff is worse than astrology.
David Oberman
2006-05-07 19:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sawfish
Post by Simon
yes, but then again, many older folks look at the past with rose coloured
spectacles and think that anything "modern" is automatically rubbish. no
sense of balance either way. truth is that beauty is in the eye of the
beholder anyway but, that said, there have always been beauties and hags and
everything in between...and always will be.
In my view that's exactly right.
And yet there is always that small segment of each generation: the
neoclassicists, who want to turn back the clock for aesthetic reasons.
They usually fail to get the rest of the world to follow, however.
Sawfish
2006-05-07 17:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Howard Brazee
Of course. All of the standards of beauty, whether they are women,
music, paintings, or whatever that I learned as a teen are the *real*
ones. The kids of today are simply wrong.
I saw a thread in one of the binary newsgroups for some pics of Avril
Lavigne, announcing her as the hottest woman on the planet. Uh-hunh. I
hear (and read) them rave about some twenty-something's great good looks,
and then I look at the pictures...
Kids today are like kids anytime: they think anything that happened before
they were born is irrelevant and unimportant, and somehow not as good or
interesting or fulfilling as what they have. Those who hold that notion are
wrong.
But look at it this way: what they have is *all* they have, and all
they'll ever have, for peers.

Who doesn't go thru a phase of favoring peers over predecessors or
generations that follow.
George Peatty
2006-05-07 17:28:18 UTC
Permalink
On 07 May 2006 17:08:19 GMT, Sawfish <***@sawfish.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Sawfish
Who doesn't go thru a phase of favoring peers over predecessors or
generations that follow.
Well, I'm a baby boomer and our generation is sometimes called "the Me
generation" so, yes, I can relate. Most people of any generation gain some
perspective as they grow older and learn to appreciate some parts of the
history which preceded them. Case in point: I'm listening to an Andrews
Sisters MP3 as I write .. And, many who are reading this are in a newsgroup
called past-films talking about movies that aired before any of us were born
..











__

This space left blank

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Alan Hope
2006-05-07 18:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
[snip]
Post by Sawfish
Who doesn't go thru a phase of favoring peers over predecessors or
generations that follow.
Well, I'm a baby boomer and our generation is sometimes called "the Me
generation" so, yes, I can relate. Most people of any generation gain some
perspective as they grow older and learn to appreciate some parts of the
history which preceded them. Case in point: I'm listening to an Andrews
Sisters MP3 as I write .. And, many who are reading this are in a newsgroup
called past-films talking about movies that aired before any of us were born
Movies don't "air". TV shows, like prisoners allowed out into the
exercise yard, with always the threat hanging over them that they may
be dragged back inside and locked up again, "air".

Movies "are released" -- and there's no going back, baby!
--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com
Howard Brazee
2006-05-07 23:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Movies don't "air". TV shows, like prisoners allowed out into the
exercise yard, with always the threat hanging over them that they may
be dragged back inside and locked up again, "air".
Maybe they need to be decanted.
dvdscds
2006-05-07 23:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Calvin Rice
Angelina Jolie. Yeah, I know, she's supposed to be the sexiest
thing that ever lived. I think she's revolting, and isn't remotely as
'hot' as Sophia Loren was in her prime.
I came around in a manner of speaking after seeing Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but
you're right: today's women can't hold a candle to the beauties of the 50's
and 60's: Monroe, Loren, Ava Gardner, Ursula Undress (I mean, Andress ..)
Heck, the second team with the likes of Kim Novak, Joan Collins, and Yvonne
de Carlo is better than any set of beauties you can name today ..
I think Kim Novak was super sexy in "Vertigo". I think that's Kim
Novak.
I do believe Angelina Jolie is one of the sexiest women past and
present.
Whitney Houston is cute....maybe not sexy.

-----------
DVDs CDs Videos - Buy Sell Trade
http://blog.myspace.com/dvdscds
dvdscds
2006-05-07 23:55:08 UTC
Permalink
"Sexy" changes with time. When I look at pictures of Marilyn Monroe,
she
looks kind of chubby.

-----------
DVDs CDs Videos - Buy Sell Trade
http://blog.myspace.com/dvdscds
David Matthews
2006-05-08 00:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by dvdscds
"Sexy" changes with time. When I look at pictures of Marilyn Monroe,
she
looks kind of chubby.
-----------
She was always a liitle too obvious for me. Not as high camp as Mae West but
pretty close.

Dave in Toronto
Charles Rogan
2006-05-08 00:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Ann Sheridan is one of the hottest, by far.
Howard Brazee
2006-05-08 00:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by dvdscds
Whitney Houston is cute....maybe not sexy.
To me, some of the sexiest people qualify as "cute". It depends on
how they direct that smile.
David Matthews
2006-05-08 01:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Just came across this bit of nastiness in Graham Greene's review of "High,
Wide and Handsome" with Irene Dunne. Greene says "...one is left with a few
distressing memories- One being Miss Dunne singing besides a farm horse
(Miss Dunne is the one without the white patch on her forehead)".

Dave in Toronto
Taylor
2006-05-08 01:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Matthews
Just came across this bit of nastiness in Graham Greene's review of "High,
Wide and Handsome" with Irene Dunne. Greene says "...one is left with a few
distressing memories- One being Miss Dunne singing besides a farm horse
(Miss Dunne is the one without the white patch on her forehead)".
Dave in Toronto
More like Irene RYAN in Beverly Hillbillies. That fat woman at the
kissing booth Stan Gable gets to kiss instead of his girlfriend Betty
Childs in Revenge Of The Nerds' and that drunk, Irish housekeeper on the
first Freaky Friday movie. Oh, and Helen Hunt just because. :-D
larry legallo
2006-05-09 21:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by dvdscds
Whitney Houston is cute....maybe not sexy.
To me, some of the sexiest people qualify as "cute". It depends on
how they direct that smile.
I agree it's definitely possible to be both cute and sexy. Think
Goldie Hawn.
^^indifference^^
2006-05-09 18:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by dvdscds
Post by George Peatty
Post by Calvin Rice
Angelina Jolie. Yeah, I know, she's supposed to be the sexiest
thing that ever lived. I think she's revolting, and isn't remotely as
'hot' as Sophia Loren was in her prime.
I came around in a manner of speaking after seeing Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but
you're right: today's women can't hold a candle to the beauties of the 50's
and 60's: Monroe, Loren, Ava Gardner, Ursula Undress (I mean, Andress ..)
Heck, the second team with the likes of Kim Novak, Joan Collins, and Yvonne
de Carlo is better than any set of beauties you can name today ..
I think Kim Novak was super sexy in "Vertigo". I think that's Kim
Novak.
I do believe Angelina Jolie is one of the sexiest women past and
present.
Whitney Houston is cute....maybe not sexy.
-----------
DVDs CDs Videos - Buy Sell Trade
http://blog.myspace.com/dvdscds
^^indifference^^
2006-05-09 18:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by dvdscds
Whitney Houston is cute....maybe not sexy.
Have you seen her lately? Ugh.
larry legallo
2006-05-09 21:42:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 May 2006 11:23:44 -0400, George Peatty
Post by George Peatty
Post by Calvin Rice
Angelina Jolie. Yeah, I know, she's supposed to be the sexiest
thing that ever lived. I think she's revolting, and isn't remotely as
'hot' as Sophia Loren was in her prime.
I came around in a manner of speaking after seeing Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but
you're right: today's women can't hold a candle to the beauties of the 50's
and 60's: Monroe, Loren, Ava Gardner, Ursula Undress (I mean, Andress ..)
Heck, the second team with the likes of Kim Novak, Joan Collins, and Yvonne
de Carlo is better than any set of beauties you can name today ..
Harkness was right: apples and oranges. Rare are the movies these
days when the camera is seemingly having a two-hour love affair with
an actress's face, but that doesn't mean there's any shortage of
screen beauties. I love each and every one of the gorgeous stars you
mentioned, as well as so many more from eras past (and the gallery you
linked to before is fantastic), but I also think there are scores of
current actresses around the world today whose beauty is just
undeniable. Would you like names?
George Peatty
2006-05-09 22:48:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 09 May 2006 21:42:07 GMT, larry legallo <***@usa.net> wrote:

[snip]
Post by larry legallo
but I also think there are scores of
current actresses around the world today whose beauty is just
undeniable. Would you like names?
There are, indeed, but if this is an apples and oranges comparison, then I
don't see any reason to prolong this debate to a point where it becomes
silly. There are enough beautiful women in every Hollywood era for all of
us to admire, and no one's choice on this subject can be rightly understood
as "wrong" in any aesthetic sense.











__

This space left blank

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
David Oberman
2006-05-10 00:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by larry legallo
Harkness was right: apples and oranges. Rare are the movies these
days when the camera is seemingly having a two-hour love affair with
an actress's face, but that doesn't mean there's any shortage of
screen beauties.
The lady in "Oceans Twelve" was lusciously beautiful & lovingly
photographed in that ladled-on way. Besides, I liked that movie!
Post by larry legallo
I love each and every one of the gorgeous stars you
mentioned, as well as so many more from eras past (and the gallery you
linked to before is fantastic), but I also think there are scores of
current actresses around the world today whose beauty is just
undeniable. Would you like names?
I think the keepers of the old days are really referring to something
more than physical beauty--the shape of the this or the that in a
pulchritudinous sense. I think they're really referring to whatever
the word is that encompasses beauty, personality, & above all, style.

Hmmm. . . maybe that word IS beauty.

So an actress like--what is her name?--the one from "Interview With a
Vampire" has so very little that's worth looking at or listening to on
the big screen: she is mostly beauty-free, sad to say, which includes
the way she presents herself (part of a woman's style). In her case,
she foists herself on us or at us; she is an irritant in most of the
shit I've seen her in. Drew Barrymore also fits that bill. And some
sort of cruddily sexy actresses may have pretty faces or perfect
bodies & boobs but still register as ordinary scudettes, with no
allure.

But the gal in "Oceans Twelve" had it all, as far as I'm concerned.
What style . . . . & what a looker.
Forge
2006-05-10 10:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Oberman
Post by larry legallo
Harkness was right: apples and oranges. Rare are the movies these
days when the camera is seemingly having a two-hour love affair with
an actress's face, but that doesn't mean there's any shortage of
screen beauties.
The lady in "Oceans Twelve" was lusciously beautiful & lovingly
photographed in that ladled-on way. Besides, I liked that movie!
Catherine Zeta-Jones??? You're talking about a woman of an entirely
different league than 90% of the other women in Hollywood. In her realm
you have her, Monica Bellucci, Salma Hayek (who only just joined this
list), and only one or two others. If Scarlett Johansson plays her cards
right, she'll be in this group in 10 more years. The rest of 'em are
just... actors. Julia Roberts isn't even fit to hold Catherine's
handbag, for example.
m***@excite.com
2006-06-01 02:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Forge
Post by David Oberman
Post by larry legallo
Harkness was right: apples and oranges. Rare are the movies these
days when the camera is seemingly having a two-hour love affair with
an actress's face, but that doesn't mean there's any shortage of
screen beauties.
The lady in "Oceans Twelve" was lusciously beautiful & lovingly
photographed in that ladled-on way. Besides, I liked that movie!
Catherine Zeta-Jones??? You're talking about a woman of an entirely
different league than 90% of the other women in Hollywood. In her realm
you have her, Monica Bellucci, Salma Hayek (who only just joined this
list), and only one or two others. If Scarlett Johansson plays her cards
right, she'll be in this group in 10 more years. The rest of 'em are
just... actors. Julia Roberts isn't even fit to hold Catherine's
handbag, for example.
I've always favoured Thora Birch over Scarlett in Ghost World, myself.
It's coloured my way of looking at her.

I think today's perception of beauty in the mainstream media has more
to do with some kind of exotic features rather than comic-book/glamour
"beauty". There's really a fine line between unique features and
"features too strong".

Julia, for instance, used to be appealing because of her incredibly
wide smile. As she's gotten older, though, it's become more pronounced,
so the line between uniqueness and ugliness has narrowed in some
people's eyes.

Angelina Jolie doesn't look like a lot of women. She's unique because
she's got these really naturally thick lips (which aren't
collagen-filled, either, AFAIK). So, there's a sort of distinctness
about her that a lot of people perceive as beauty.

Not that I necessarily agree with any of this personally, but I see
where their admirers are coming from.

Asfalttisoturi
2006-05-06 23:14:54 UTC
Permalink
yeah, i know there's many those ugly bitches around....and they really
make me question the existence of god. But my atheism always goes away
when i see a pretty woman.... (AND i DOnT MEAN THAT JULIA ROBERTS
!!!!!)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...