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.

Oh, and a LOT of people really ARE way too damned
fat ... so if he wants to poke 'em a bit, maybe
not the worst thing :-)

Sometime last fall I was watching news and there'd
been some kind of disaster in some smaller Heartland
town. The news said food supplies were being rushed
to the area as the residents complained about it all
in the town hall. Thing is, looked like at least 80%
of the people there were GIGANTIC - like literally
roll-down-the-hill gigantic - men women and kids.
Seems "starving" for them meant not getting at least
NINE THOUSAND calories a day (and don't forget the
damned beer !).