https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html

Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
is not, what the faithful claim it is.

There are even modern reconstructions of the
'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.

BUT ...

The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5

"For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
"good looking" renditions would be FAKES.

Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>
> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>
> There are even modern reconstructions of the
> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>
> BUT ...
>
> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>
> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>
> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>
> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?

in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
led to greater melanin production.

On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>
>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>
>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>
>> BUT ...
>>
>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>
>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>
>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>
>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>
>
> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
> led to greater melanin production.

Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
kinda the same 'olive' look.

My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
people aren't "good looking".

So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.

Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
that's how they looked - period.

"Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
a face that'd let her get away".

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>
>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>
>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>
>>> BUT ...
>>>
>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>
>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>
>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>
>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>
>>
>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>> led to greater melanin production.
>
>
> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>
> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
> people aren't "good looking".
>
> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>
> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
> that's how they looked - period.
>
> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
> a face that'd let her get away".

well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
features are not symmetric.

but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly?

On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>
>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>
>>>> BUT ...
>>>>
>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>
>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>
>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>
>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>
>>>
>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>
>>
>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>
>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>> people aren't "good looking".
>>
>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>
>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>> that's how they looked - period.
>>
>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>> a face that'd let her get away".
>
>
> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
> features are not symmetric.
>
> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?

I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
because they were treated so badly by so many in their
youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
really wasn't a great looker :-)

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:19:01 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>
>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>
>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>
>> BUT ...
>>
>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>
>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>
>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>
>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>
>
>in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>led to greater melanin production.

What has that to do with ugliness, or the lack of it?

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On 8/23/24 11:21 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:19:01 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>
>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>
>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>
>>> BUT ...
>>>
>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>
>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>
>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>
>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>
>>
>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>> led to greater melanin production.
>
> What has that to do with ugliness, or the lack of it?

I suspect he's a "white supremacist" alas ... probably
thinks the Jesus guy was a stealth "aryan" .....

But I gave him a FAIR response. We'll see ....

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 05:21:44 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:19:01 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>
>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>
>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>
>>> BUT ...
>>>
>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>
>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>
>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>
>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>
>>
>>in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>led to greater melanin production.
>
> What has that to do with ugliness, or the lack of it?

i dont know, just thought it was cultural appropriation perhaps.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 02:36:24 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 8/23/24 11:21 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:19:01 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>
>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>
>>>> BUT ...
>>>>
>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>
>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>
>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>
>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>
>>>
>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>
>> What has that to do with ugliness, or the lack of it?
>
>
> I suspect he's a "white supremacist" alas ... probably
> thinks the Jesus guy was a stealth "aryan" .....
>
> But I gave him a FAIR response. We'll see ....

btw do you know any white supremacist news groups? where do they
post?

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>
>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>
>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>>> people aren't "good looking".
>>>
>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>
>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>> that's how they looked - period.
>>>
>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>>> a face that'd let her get away".
>>
>>
>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>> features are not symmetric.
>>
>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>
>
> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
> really wasn't a great looker :-)

there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
btw is there a fats anonymous?

kami wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>>
>>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>>>> people aren't "good looking".
>>>>
>>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>>
>>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>>> that's how they looked - period.
>>>>
>>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>>>> a face that'd let her get away".
>>>
>>>
>>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>>> features are not symmetric.
>>>
>>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>>
>>
>> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
>> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
>> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
>> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
>> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
>> really wasn't a great looker :-)
>
>
> there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
> and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
> btw is there a fats anonymous?
>
>
there's a fat acceptance

In article <wpicncJw2vGEm1f7nZ2dnZfqn_gAAAAA@giganews.com>, pursent100
@gmail.com says...
>
> kami wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
> >>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
> >>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> BUT ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
> >>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
> >>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
> >>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
> >>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
> >>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
> >>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
> >>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
> >>>>> led to greater melanin production.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
> >>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
> >>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
> >>>>
> >>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
> >>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
> >>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
> >>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
> >>>> people aren't "good looking".
> >>>>
> >>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
> >>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
> >>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
> >>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
> >>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
> >>>> that's how they looked - period.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
> >>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
> >>>> a face that'd let her get away".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
> >>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
> >>> features are not symmetric.
> >>>
> >>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
> >>
> >>
> >> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
> >> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
> >> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
> >> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
> >> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
> >> really wasn't a great looker :-)
> >
> >
> > there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
> > and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
> > btw is there a fats anonymous?
> >
> >
> there's a fat acceptance

i killed that group years ago

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 10:24:08 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 05:21:44 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:19:01 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>
>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>
>>>> BUT ...
>>>>
>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>
>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>
>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>
>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>
>>>
>>>in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>led to greater melanin production.
>>
>> What has that to do with ugliness, or the lack of it?
>
>
>i dont know, just thought it was cultural appropriation perhaps.

Check this song, then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DTFwNOEzIY

The other day reading Drum magazine
I'll tell you some of the things I seen
The other day reading Drum magazine
I'll tell you some of the things I seen
Advertisements for special cream in every section
Give you a soft and pale complexion
Make your black skin lighter creamier and whiter
But when I look in the Star what do I find
But advertisements of a different kind
Because it seems that the white people have a notion
To make them selves black with the Sun Tan Lotion

Tell me, tell me, tell me why I want to know the fact
Why all the black people want to go
white and the white people want to go black.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:11:04 -0700, % wrote:

> kami wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>>>
>>>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>>>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>>>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>>>>> people aren't "good looking".
>>>>>
>>>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>>>> that's how they looked - period.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>>>>> a face that'd let her get away".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>>>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>>>> features are not symmetric.
>>>>
>>>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
>>> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
>>> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
>>> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
>>> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
>>> really wasn't a great looker :-)
>>
>>
>> there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
>> and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
>> btw is there a fats anonymous?
>>
>>
> there's a fat acceptance

really? i thought usenet is ancient and all groups were made
decades ago. i dont think there was any such thing as fat
acceptance then.

fat people were shamed as should be the case.

kami wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:11:04 -0700, % wrote:
>
>> kami wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>>>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>>>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>>>>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>>>>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>>>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>>>>>> people aren't "good looking".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>>>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>>>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>>>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>>>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>>>>> that's how they looked - period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>>>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>>>>>> a face that'd let her get away".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>>>>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>>>>> features are not symmetric.
>>>>>
>>>>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
>>>> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
>>>> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
>>>> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
>>>> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
>>>> really wasn't a great looker :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
>>> and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
>>> btw is there a fats anonymous?
>>>
>>>
>> there's a fat acceptance
>
>
> really? i thought usenet is ancient and all groups were made
> decades ago. i dont think there was any such thing as fat
> acceptance then.
>
> fat people were shamed as should be the case.
>
there are lots of fat groups

186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>
> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>
> There are even modern reconstructions of the
> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>
> BUT ...
>
> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>
> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

Have you seen Jews from that part of the world? Mizrahi or Sephardic? Most
of them literally look like inbred monsters in too tight skinsuits. There
was probably literal freak show going on every day on the streets of
Jerusalem. Of course they would despise handsome, more European looking
guy, just like they were despising Greeks. Of course they would hide their
barely human faces from someone like that. Lol.

In all seriousness, Isaiah is talking of Jesus as of “man of sorrows and
acquainted with grief”, in other words, he was talking of the time when
Jesus was tortured and killed by Jews. Here’s what he’s saying next:

“But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our
iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his
wounds we are healed.”

This is how Christ looks like, as far as I care:

<https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg>

End of story.

Note that it was created in Egypt, and for some reason they didn’t think
Jesus was melanin-enriched.

On 8/24/24 10:47 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 10:24:08 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 05:21:44 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:19:01 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>
>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>
>>> What has that to do with ugliness, or the lack of it?
>>
>>
>> i dont know, just thought it was cultural appropriation perhaps.
>
> Check this song, then:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DTFwNOEzIY
>
> The other day reading Drum magazine
> I'll tell you some of the things I seen
> The other day reading Drum magazine
> I'll tell you some of the things I seen
> Advertisements for special cream in every section
> Give you a soft and pale complexion
> Make your black skin lighter creamier and whiter
> But when I look in the Star what do I find
> But advertisements of a different kind
> Because it seems that the white people have a notion
> To make them selves black with the Sun Tan Lotion
>
> Tell me, tell me, tell me why I want to know the fact
> Why all the black people want to go
> white and the white people want to go black.

In ten years they'll have mRNA pills at the
cosmetics counter in WalMart and you can be
any color you want :-)

"Zebra" and "leopard" ... might have to wait
a few more years.

On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 12:26:29 -0700, % wrote:

> kami wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:11:04 -0700, % wrote:
>>
>>> kami wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>>>>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>>>>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>>>>>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>>>>>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>>>>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>>>>>>> people aren't "good looking".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>>>>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>>>>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>>>>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>>>>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>>>>>> that's how they looked - period.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>>>>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>>>>>>> a face that'd let her get away".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>>>>>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>>>>>> features are not symmetric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
>>>>> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
>>>>> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
>>>>> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
>>>>> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
>>>>> really wasn't a great looker :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
>>>> and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
>>>> btw is there a fats anonymous?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> there's a fat acceptance
>>
>>
>> really? i thought usenet is ancient and all groups were made
>> decades ago. i dont think there was any such thing as fat
>> acceptance then.
>>
>> fat people were shamed as should be the case.
>>
> there are lots of fat groups

please point me to those groups, i will call them fatties all day
long.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 02:54:14 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 8/24/24 10:47 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 10:24:08 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 05:21:44 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:19:01 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>
>>>> What has that to do with ugliness, or the lack of it?
>>>
>>>
>>> i dont know, just thought it was cultural appropriation perhaps.
>>
>> Check this song, then:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DTFwNOEzIY
>>
>> The other day reading Drum magazine
>> I'll tell you some of the things I seen
>> The other day reading Drum magazine
>> I'll tell you some of the things I seen
>> Advertisements for special cream in every section
>> Give you a soft and pale complexion
>> Make your black skin lighter creamier and whiter
>> But when I look in the Star what do I find
>> But advertisements of a different kind
>> Because it seems that the white people have a notion
>> To make them selves black with the Sun Tan Lotion
>>
>> Tell me, tell me, tell me why I want to know the fact
>> Why all the black people want to go
>> white and the white people want to go black.
>
>
> In ten years they'll have mRNA pills at the
> cosmetics counter in WalMart and you can be
> any color you want :-)
>
> "Zebra" and "leopard" ... might have to wait
> a few more years.

not mRNA, but gRNA. i want someone who is proficient in genetics
to explain the nuances.

kami wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 12:26:29 -0700, % wrote:
>
>> kami wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:11:04 -0700, % wrote:
>>>
>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>>>>>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>>>>>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>>>>>>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>>>>>>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>>>>>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>>>>>>>> people aren't "good looking".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>>>>>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>>>>>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>>>>>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>>>>>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>>>>>>> that's how they looked - period.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>>>>>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>>>>>>>> a face that'd let her get away".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>>>>>>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>>>>>>> features are not symmetric.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
>>>>>> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
>>>>>> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
>>>>>> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
>>>>>> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
>>>>>> really wasn't a great looker :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
>>>>> and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
>>>>> btw is there a fats anonymous?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> there's a fat acceptance
>>>
>>>
>>> really? i thought usenet is ancient and all groups were made
>>> decades ago. i dont think there was any such thing as fat
>>> acceptance then.
>>>
>>> fat people were shamed as should be the case.
>>>
>> there are lots of fat groups
>
>
> please point me to those groups, i will call them fatties all day
> long.
>
search where you subscribe to groups

https://www.harley.com/cgi-bin/usenet/usenet.pl?what=fat&x=22&y=23&state=wholewordmatch&adult=0

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:

> kami wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 12:26:29 -0700, % wrote:
>>
>>> kami wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:11:04 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>>>>>>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>>>>>>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>>>>>>>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>>>>>>>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>>>>>>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>>>>>>>>> people aren't "good looking".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>>>>>>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>>>>>>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>>>>>>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>>>>>>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>>>>>>>> that's how they looked - period.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>>>>>>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>>>>>>>>> a face that'd let her get away".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>>>>>>>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>>>>>>>> features are not symmetric.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
>>>>>>> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
>>>>>>> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
>>>>>>> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
>>>>>>> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
>>>>>>> really wasn't a great looker :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
>>>>>> and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
>>>>>> btw is there a fats anonymous?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> there's a fat acceptance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> really? i thought usenet is ancient and all groups were made
>>>> decades ago. i dont think there was any such thing as fat
>>>> acceptance then.
>>>>
>>>> fat people were shamed as should be the case.
>>>>
>>> there are lots of fat groups
>>
>>
>> please point me to those groups, i will call them fatties all day
>> long.
>>
> search where you subscribe to groups
>
> https://www.harley.com/cgi-bin/usenet/usenet.pl?what=fat&x=22&y=23&state=wholewordmatch&adult=0

they look kinda dead, except one, which has nothing to do with
fat people, let me see.

kami wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:
>
>> kami wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 12:26:29 -0700, % wrote:
>>>
>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:11:04 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>>>>>>>>> in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>>>>>>>>> kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My question revolves around "good looks". The reconstruction
>>>>>>>>>> scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by prophets
>>>>>>>>>> or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>>>>>>>>> good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed MOST
>>>>>>>>>> people aren't "good looking".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>>>>>>>>> If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>>>>>>>>> then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>>>>>>>>> looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>>>>>>>>> they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>>>>>>>>> that's how they looked - period.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>>>>>>>>> brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born with
>>>>>>>>>> a face that'd let her get away".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>>>>>>>>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>>>>>>>>> features are not symmetric.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
>>>>>>>> because they were treated so badly by so many in their
>>>>>>>> youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
>>>>>>>> to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
>>>>>>>> suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
>>>>>>>> really wasn't a great looker :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
>>>>>>> and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
>>>>>>> btw is there a fats anonymous?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> there's a fat acceptance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> really? i thought usenet is ancient and all groups were made
>>>>> decades ago. i dont think there was any such thing as fat
>>>>> acceptance then.
>>>>>
>>>>> fat people were shamed as should be the case.
>>>>>
>>>> there are lots of fat groups
>>>
>>>
>>> please point me to those groups, i will call them fatties all day
>>> long.
>>>
>> search where you subscribe to groups
>>
>> https://www.harley.com/cgi-bin/usenet/usenet.pl?what=fat&x=22&y=23&state=wholewordmatch&adult=0
>
>
> they look kinda dead, except one, which has nothing to do with
> fat people, let me see.
>
of course they're dead , usenet is dead ,
i'm not going to search over 200,000 groups ,
just for you to find ones you like ,
you asked for some dealing with fat i gave you fat

On 8/26/24 7:48 AM, kami wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 02:54:14 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 8/24/24 10:47 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 10:24:08 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 05:21:44 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:19:01 -0000 (UTC), kami <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of
>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no
>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a
>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide
>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>
>>>>> What has that to do with ugliness, or the lack of it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i dont know, just thought it was cultural appropriation perhaps.
>>>
>>> Check this song, then:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DTFwNOEzIY
>>>
>>> The other day reading Drum magazine
>>> I'll tell you some of the things I seen
>>> The other day reading Drum magazine
>>> I'll tell you some of the things I seen
>>> Advertisements for special cream in every section
>>> Give you a soft and pale complexion
>>> Make your black skin lighter creamier and whiter
>>> But when I look in the Star what do I find
>>> But advertisements of a different kind
>>> Because it seems that the white people have a notion
>>> To make them selves black with the Sun Tan Lotion
>>>
>>> Tell me, tell me, tell me why I want to know the fact
>>> Why all the black people want to go
>>> white and the white people want to go black.
>>
>>
>> In ten years they'll have mRNA pills at the
>> cosmetics counter in WalMart and you can be
>> any color you want :-)
>>
>> "Zebra" and "leopard" ... might have to wait
>> a few more years.
>
>
> not mRNA, but gRNA. i want someone who is proficient in genetics
> to explain the nuances.

Biochemically, either might do the trick - preferably
short-term so people can keep up with the fashion trends.

gRNA can facilitate access to existing genes, but
mRNA can pretend to be from genes the host may not
even possess. If you want 'leopard' that'd likely
be important since our historic line only seems to
have been shades from solid black to white.

Editing methylation can surely also yield some very
interesting effects - hey, that's basically the diff
between a Great Dane and a Pomeranian.

Still have my textbooks from the biochem/genetics
classes ....

In any case, consider the amazingly lucrative
'cosmetics'/vanity industry. If easy, people
WOULD keep switching to the trendy colors and
hair types and such over and over - with the $$$,
big BIG $$$, rolling in for every little tweak.
What ya want are SHORT-term over-writable tweaks
and then you will be wealthy beyond all dreams
of avarice. :-)

On 8/26/24 3:57 PM, % wrote:
> kami wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:02:32 -0700, % wrote:
>>
>>> kami wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 12:26:29 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 09:11:04 -0700, % wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kami wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:06:22 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 10:49 PM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:35:36 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/24 9:19 AM, kami wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:06:47 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every few years they "prove" the thing is, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not, what the faithful claim it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are even modern reconstructions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'face' - a fairly handsome Hebrew man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Prophet Isaiah 53:2-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> root out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at him, and no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected by men, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom men hide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, the Jesus guy was actually kinda UGLY. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "good looking" renditions would be FAKES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if Isaiah had a 'mis-vision', why do you just ASSUME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Jesus guy wasn't a rather ugly git ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> in those days, in that region, everyone was a strong shade of
>>>>>>>>>>>> brown, due to the toiling all day in the sun, which by default
>>>>>>>>>>>> led to greater melanin production.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>         Don't particularly care about skin-tone ... everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>         in that part of the world, except imported slaves, had
>>>>>>>>>>>         kinda the same 'olive' look.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>         My question revolves around "good looks". The
>>>>>>>>>>> reconstruction
>>>>>>>>>>>         scan shows a GOOD LOOKING Hebrew guy - yet either by
>>>>>>>>>>> prophets
>>>>>>>>>>>         or alleged witnesses - nobody said if the Jesus guy WAS
>>>>>>>>>>>         good looking. MIGHT have been kind of a toad. Indeed
>>>>>>>>>>> MOST
>>>>>>>>>>>         people aren't "good looking".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>         So WHY the assumptions that the guy was 'GQ' material ?
>>>>>>>>>>>         If that scan WAS an accurate take on the shroud image
>>>>>>>>>>>         then that the guy (IF that's what it is) being so good
>>>>>>>>>>>         looking suggests it's the WRONG GUY.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>         Oh well, True Believers will never be deterred ... if
>>>>>>>>>>>         they want their gods to look like a young Brad Pitt then
>>>>>>>>>>>         that's how they looked - period.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>         "Beauty=Truth=Beauty" is apparently hard-wired into our
>>>>>>>>>>>         brains ... or as Tom Petty once put it "She was born
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>         a face that'd let her get away".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> well yeah, our perception of the genetic health of a mate is the
>>>>>>>>>> result of symmetry. like retards look like retards because their
>>>>>>>>>> features are not symmetric.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but the question is, why are so many dictators butt ugly ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>        I suspect it's BECAUSE they're ugly - or more in particular
>>>>>>>>>        because they were treated so badly by so many in their
>>>>>>>>>        youth and they want "ultimate revenge". They are motivated
>>>>>>>>>        to become THE Guy, der Furher - then everybody has to
>>>>>>>>>        suck their dick (in a few historical cases, clit ; QE-1
>>>>>>>>>        really wasn't a great looker  :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there should be an uggos anonymous support group, they can meet
>>>>>>>> and discuss how extra unfair the world is, especially fat people.
>>>>>>>> btw is there a fats anonymous?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there's a fat acceptance
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> really? i thought usenet is ancient and all groups were made
>>>>>> decades ago. i dont think there was any such thing as fat
>>>>>> acceptance then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fat people were shamed as should be the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>> there are lots of fat groups
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> please point me to those groups, i will call them fatties all day
>>>> long.
>>>>
>>> search where you subscribe to groups
>>>
>>> https://www.harley.com/cgi-bin/usenet/usenet.pl?what=fat&x=22&y=23&state=wholewordmatch&adult=0
>>>
>>
>>
>> they look kinda dead, except one, which has nothing to do with
>> fat people, let me see.
>>
> of course they're dead , usenet is dead ,
> i'm not going to search over 200,000 groups ,
> just for you to find ones you like ,
> you asked for some dealing with fat i gave you fat

The "infinite references" trick is an old one. Keep
demanding proofs, then proofs to the proofs and so
on. When the other guy finally say "Haven't the
time dickweed !" you immediately declare total
victory. :-)

If Dude here wants "fat groups" he can find them
on usenet or likely 1000 web-sites/chat-groups
elsewhere. It's mostly up to HIM to put in the
followup time & energy.

Fat Dave Keeting AKA % wrote:
> you asked for some dealing with fat i gave you fat
>
>

https://postimg.cc/mcVcTpsQ