tamarinden
October 28, 2006 - 02:25 AM
Quote:
Funny thing is Tim said the ONLY collection that excited him
was Jeffrey's so the judges were right on the money I guess.
Thanks for your reply. I guess what I had a problem with was your twisting of Tim's words to say that he was ONLY excited to see Jeffrey's because he clearly didnt say that.
He said he was most excited, but he was clearly thrilled with Laura's collection as well as Uli's. He gave Laura a huge very excited hug after she presented.
For me I was very unsurprised by Jeffrey's collection because I knew that it would be deconstructed all the way. Did I love it? Oh yes I absolutely did My favorite piece was that gorgeous swimsuit and transluscent cover jacket which I just loved.
No need to constantly compare them as they are all totally different and I stated long ago I was done comparing Jeffrey to Laura and Uli, its not fair to any of them.
Mel2006
October 28, 2006 - 08:16 PM
I totally BELIEVE Keith.......... He must seek legal advice and get his fellow contestants to speak truthfully.
BRAVO is only thinking about BRAVO: The money and Emmy's. Yes, I do feel Keith was set up because if they were all searched, and his books were taken, who then but a production person would then put them back? Do you think Keith went through every place to find them?
Keith, you have two options:
1) Get legal advice
2) People are going to forget all about this, and keep working harder than before. Don't give BRAVO so much control over your life.
It is too soon for the other fellow designers to say "They saw them too" for they might be in fear of their own careers and contracts with BRAVO. You might have to wait until time goes by, and only then, will people begin to speak up.
Keith, good luck. I, for one, believe you. Since Tim Gunn and Heidi felt you were the one to beat for the Runway, the other designer's didn't speak up for you. Afterall, this was a competition. They all played games with one another.
Unfortunately, this is considered a reality show.
Do what you do best: Design.
possum
October 28, 2006 - 09:38 PM
I just watched the finale on Tivo (I was out of the country.) And I have to say that I probably won't be watching Project Runway anymore. It's not because I disagree with the judges; it's because I just don't get what they're seeing.
Perhaps if they canned some of the drama (will Jeffrey show? won't he?) and gave more time to the judges discussing all of the most important pieces, with closeups (what they liked about them exactly, what they didn't, what they considered innovative and why...) then non-fashionistas such as myself would understand why Jeffrey won and Uli lost.
After Jeffrey's collection showed, I thought the one word to describe it was: forgettable. A few glimpses of candy cane stripes, that's all (is it Christmas?) Then Uli's line came on, and wow! It was lovely, and colorful, and fun. Obviously there's something going on that a lot of us don't get.
At least on Top Chef, we're clear on why the judges go the way they do, without having to read a blog. It makes sense to the non-professional audience. I bet if you looked around the tv audience now, you'd mostly see a lot of dropped jaws, blank stares, and heads a'shakin...
Where is that remote?
tamarinden
October 29, 2006 - 06:35 AM
Quote:
I just watched the finale on Tivo (I was out of the country.) And I have to say that I probably won't be watching Project Runway anymore. It's not because I disagree with the judges; it's because I just don't get what they're seeing.
Perhaps if they canned some of the drama (will Jeffrey show? won't he?) and gave more time to the judges discussing all of the most important pieces, with closeups (what they liked about them exactly, what they didn't, what they considered innovative and why...) then non-fashionistas such as myself would understand why Jeffrey won and Uli lost.
After Jeffrey's collection showed, I thought the one word to describe it was: forgettable. A few glimpses of candy cane stripes, that's all (is it Christmas?) Then Uli's line came on, and wow! It was lovely, and colorful, and fun. Obviously there's something going on that a lot of us don't get.
At least on Top Chef, we're clear on why the judges go the way they do, without having to read a blog. It makes sense to the non-professional audience. I bet if you looked around the tv audience now, you'd mostly see a lot of dropped jaws, blank stares, and heads a'shakin...
Where is that remote?
I love the judges, but they are human like everyone else. I remember when poor misguided Bradley was completely stuck for the dog challenge and ended up putting out a wrinkled poorly made bubble blouse and cheap looking skirt he made in less than an hour and Nina was just all over that dress "Oh I can see photographing that for Elle" LOL That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the fashion industry, IMO.
beechlapper
October 29, 2006 - 11:22 AM
Quote:
I love the judges, but they are human like everyone else. I remember when poor misguided Bradley was completely stuck for the dog challenge and ended up putting out a wrinkled poorly made bubble blouse and cheap looking skirt he made in less than an hour and Nina was just all over that dress "Oh I can see photographing that for Elle" LOL That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the fashion industry, IMO.
Rather than twisting your words or putting words in your mouth, what exactly in your opinion is wrong with the fashion industry ?
Saying that something is wrong with the fashion industry because one fashion editor could imagine seeing a "plain" outfit photographed for her magazine seems a bit extreme.
I could possibly see your point if Nina actually put Bradley's outfit in the magazine. But condemning her for saying she could see photographing something for ELLE versus actually having something photographed and published for ELLE seems very harsh indeed.
tamarinden
October 29, 2006 - 02:43 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I love the judges, but they are human like everyone else. I remember when poor misguided Bradley was completely stuck for the dog challenge and ended up putting out a wrinkled poorly made bubble blouse and cheap looking skirt he made in less than an hour and Nina was just all over that dress "Oh I can see photographing that for Elle" LOL That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the fashion industry, IMO.
Rather than twisting your words or putting words in your mouth, what exactly in your opinion is wrong with the fashion industry ?
Saying that something is wrong with the fashion industry because one fashion editor could imagine seeing a "plain" outfit photographed for her magazine seems a bit extreme.
I could possibly see your point if Nina actually put Bradley's outfit in the magazine. But condemning her for saying she could see photographing something for ELLE versus actually having something photographed and published for ELLE seems very harsh indeed.
And where did I use the word condemn? I started out by saying that "I love the judges" please tell me where declaring you love someone is tantamount to condemnation? Take a chill pill and if you want a polite conversation come back sometime and we will talk.
beechlapper
October 29, 2006 - 03:07 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I love the judges, but they are human like everyone else. I remember when poor misguided Bradley was completely stuck for the dog challenge and ended up putting out a wrinkled poorly made bubble blouse and cheap looking skirt he made in less than an hour and Nina was just all over that dress "Oh I can see photographing that for Elle" LOL That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the fashion industry, IMO.
Rather than twisting your words or putting words in your mouth, what exactly in your opinion is wrong with the fashion industry ?
Saying that something is wrong with the fashion industry because one fashion editor could imagine seeing a "plain" outfit photographed for her magazine seems a bit extreme.
I could possibly see your point if Nina actually put Bradley's outfit in the magazine. But condemning her for saying she could see photographing something for ELLE versus actually having something photographed and published for ELLE seems very harsh indeed.
And where did I use the word condemn? I started out by saying that "I love the judges" please tell me where declaring you love someone is tantamount to condemnation? Take a chill pill and if you want a polite conversation come back sometime and we will talk.
Saying that something is wrong with the fashion industry (because of something Nina said) sounds like a condemnation to me ... but what do I know. English is only my first language.
beechlapper
October 29, 2006 - 03:43 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I love the judges, but they are human like everyone else. I remember when poor misguided Bradley was completely stuck for the dog challenge and ended up putting out a wrinkled poorly made bubble blouse and cheap looking skirt he made in less than an hour and Nina was just all over that dress "Oh I can see photographing that for Elle" LOL That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the fashion industry, IMO.
Rather than twisting your words or putting words in your mouth, what exactly in your opinion is wrong with the fashion industry ?
Saying that something is wrong with the fashion industry because one fashion editor could imagine seeing a "plain" outfit photographed for her magazine seems a bit extreme.
I could possibly see your point if Nina actually put Bradley's outfit in the magazine. But condemning her for saying she could see photographing something for ELLE versus actually having something photographed and published for ELLE seems very harsh indeed.
And where did I use the word condemn? I started out by saying that "I love the judges" please tell me where declaring you love someone is tantamount to condemnation? Take a chill pill and if you want a polite conversation come back sometime and we will talk.
Saying that something is wrong with the fashion industry (because of something Nina said) sounds like a condemnation to me ... but what do I know. English is only my first language.
My curiosity got the best of me so I looked up the definition of condemn on the website www.dictionary.com
Here is what it had to say :
con‧demn /kənˈdɛm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-dem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
To reiterate : "...and Nina was just all over that dress "Oh I can see photographing that for Elle" LOL That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the fashion industry, IMO".
Using the word "wrong" does not imply a favorable opinion. Please tell me what part of the definition of condemn does not apply ?
Jadis
October 29, 2006 - 07:29 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I love the judges, but they are human like everyone else. I remember when poor misguided Bradley was completely stuck for the dog challenge and ended up putting out a wrinkled poorly made bubble blouse and cheap looking skirt he made in less than an hour and Nina was just all over that dress "Oh I can see photographing that for Elle" LOL That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the fashion industry, IMO.
Rather than twisting your words or putting words in your mouth, what exactly in your opinion is wrong with the fashion industry ?
Saying that something is wrong with the fashion industry because one fashion editor could imagine seeing a "plain" outfit photographed for her magazine seems a bit extreme.
I could possibly see your point if Nina actually put Bradley's outfit in the magazine. But condemning her for saying she could see photographing something for ELLE versus actually having something photographed and published for ELLE seems very harsh indeed.
And where did I use the word condemn? I started out by saying that "I love the judges" please tell me where declaring you love someone is tantamount to condemnation? Take a chill pill and if you want a polite conversation come back sometime and we will talk.
I would have to disagree with that, you're the one who needs to calm down, they didn't even say anything offensive, unless you consider someone disagreeing with your point of view to be offensive.
I'm also puzzled as to how Nina maing her comment about one dress reflects an entire industry.
sixcrows
October 29, 2006 - 08:05 PM
I've tried posting this question before. So far, nobody has come up with an answer for me, so I'll try one last time.
I enjoyed the music that played during the showing of Uli's final collection. Can anybody identify that song for me. I would appreciate any help.
beechlapper
October 29, 2006 - 10:11 PM
Quote:
I've tried posting this question before. So far, nobody has come up with an answer for me, so I'll try one last time.
I enjoyed the music that played during the showing of Uli's final collection. Can anybody identify that song for me. I would appreciate any help.
The song is titled Doggy Fun by Barefoot Music. A CD is being produced the end of this month with Project Runway music on it and that song will be included. The song does not appear to be available over the internet as yet. I have heard a rumor that the album and possibly the song will be available through ITunes on October 31. (Dates are always subject to change).
IMoverit
October 30, 2006 - 03:00 AM
I started reading Jeffrey's blog and the first thing I noticed was when someone asked him if he was surprised at winning he answered "I am always surprised at winning.... I never thought I was going to win any challenge"........ in so many words..... EXCUSE ME..... after the recyclable challenge I do believe he thought he should win.... and after the rock star challenge he thought he should have won one "before now..." and at the couture challenge he was sure he was going to win two in a row....CLEOPATRA queen oF DENIAL....d' nile.
beechlapper
October 30, 2006 - 03:24 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've tried posting this question before. So far, nobody has come up with an answer for me, so I'll try one last time.
I enjoyed the music that played during the showing of Uli's final collection. Can anybody identify that song for me. I would appreciate any help.
The song is titled Doggy Fun by Barefoot Music. A CD is being produced the end of this month with Project Runway music on it and that song will be included. The song does not appear to be available over the internet as yet. I have heard a rumor that the album and possibly the song will be available through ITunes on October 31. (Dates are always subject to change).
Hey I found this and it doesn't say why it won't be on it....Hmmmm.....I wonder why?
I don't have an iPod..Do you have to have one to get an itune????
http://bloggingprojectrunway.blogspot.com/...nway-music.html
The tune was added late - the demand did not appear until the finale so there wasn't time to change all the ads.
No, you don't have to have an iPOD to access iTunes. You can download iTunes on your computer and then download and play downloaded music/movies there.
Go to website : www.apple.com/itunes/ to get the software and signup.
IMoverit
October 30, 2006 - 03:48 AM
Quote:
I started reading Jeffrey's blog and the first thing I noticed was when someone asked him if he was surprised at winning he answered "I am always surprised at winning.... I never thought I was going to win any challenge"........ in so many words..... EXCUSE ME..... after the recyclable challenge I do believe he thought he should win.... and after the rock star challenge he thought he should have won one "before now..." and at the couture challenge he was sure he was going to win two in a row....CLEOPATRA queen oF DENIAL....d' nile.
And during almost every show it was typical to hear Jeffrey ranting..... "As I look around the room there is really nothing anyone else did that is good as mine." in so many words.... Vincent would say that also...... I hope Ellen nails him today... Alfalfa.
brillke
October 30, 2006 - 05:40 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I love the judges, but they are human like everyone else. I remember when poor misguided Bradley was completely stuck for the dog challenge and ended up putting out a wrinkled poorly made bubble blouse and cheap looking skirt he made in less than an hour and Nina was just all over that dress "Oh I can see photographing that for Elle" LOL That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the fashion industry, IMO.
Rather than twisting your words or putting words in your mouth, what exactly in your opinion is wrong with the fashion industry ?
Saying that something is wrong with the fashion industry because one fashion editor could imagine seeing a "plain" outfit photographed for her magazine seems a bit extreme.
I could possibly see your point if Nina actually put Bradley's outfit in the magazine. But condemning her for saying she could see photographing something for ELLE versus actually having something photographed and published for ELLE seems very harsh indeed.
And where did I use the word condemn? I started out by saying that "I love the judges" please tell me where declaring you love someone is tantamount to condemnation? Take a chill pill and if you want a polite conversation come back sometime and we will talk.
Dang tam, someone forgot to remove the target from your back. Also think some have forgotten the show ended almost 3 weeks ago. Seems like your every word gets twisted and when you try to defend yourself, the bandwagon fills up. Take it as a compliment kiddo,
brillke
tamarinden
October 30, 2006 - 11:00 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I love the judges, but they are human like everyone else. I remember when poor misguided Bradley was completely stuck for the dog challenge and ended up putting out a wrinkled poorly made bubble blouse and cheap looking skirt he made in less than an hour and Nina was just all over that dress "Oh I can see photographing that for Elle" LOL That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the fashion industry, IMO.
Rather than twisting your words or putting words in your mouth, what exactly in your opinion is wrong with the fashion industry ?
Saying that something is wrong with the fashion industry because one fashion editor could imagine seeing a "plain" outfit photographed for her magazine seems a bit extreme.
I could possibly see your point if Nina actually put Bradley's outfit in the magazine. But condemning her for saying she could see photographing something for ELLE versus actually having something photographed and published for ELLE seems very harsh indeed.
And where did I use the word condemn? I started out by saying that "I love the judges" please tell me where declaring you love someone is tantamount to condemnation? Take a chill pill and if you want a polite conversation come back sometime and we will talk.
Dang tam, someone forgot to remove the target from your back. Also think some have forgotten the show ended almost 3 weeks ago. Seems like your every word gets twisted and when you try to defend yourself, the bandwagon fills up. Take it as a compliment kiddo,
brillke
Thanks Brillke I think of it as Jeffrey's family must be on the hunt for dissenting views. I'll just paraphrase them now and say "at LAST someone with a mind THANK YOU"
gareth
October 30, 2006 - 03:35 PM
So - YOU are still here reading after 3 weeks?
What does that say about you?
You and your condescending snippy friends have made a mockery of this board.Why don't you take these fights to private emails and let the rest of us enjoy this board too?
People are going to flame on these boards. It comes with the territory.You answering any of it is just as bad. Can't you all see that?
Why would it be so important to any of you to answer people
like that? Have you ever questioned the need you have to do that?
I have never posted as I just enjoyed reading but this has made me furious enough to actually post. I am SURE that Tam can fight her own battles . Tam seems like she cannot stop either. I read her fights with Oscarsimon and I saw how many times they called a 'truce' but she just could not stop fighting back.Last word syndrome.You all call people trolls who post and don't agree with you and rarely answer anyone unless there is friction.It is a mob mentality as some have suggested and you do not own these boards.
Please do not answer this. I mean it. Just chalk it up to another loser and let this die.If you ignore me(which I am sure you will not be able to) then you have really won.Then my words have no effect on you.
Only truly stable and mature people understand this premise.
Leave it alone!
Of course I am not being those things right now but someone needs to put an end to this.
It has gone on long enough and it has become a sport for you all.
If someone says something to a so called ' friend ' let them handle it themselves. PERIOD!
I have seen this time and time again. People who really think they are 'friends' online and somehow become popular and think that life on this board and being right all the time having a bunch of online backers makes them special.In real life you all must be miserable or were the high school geeks
and now in the darkness of your homes have somehow become the prom queens.
It's easy to be self righteous when you remain anonymous isn't it?
It's only a board about a reality TV show folks. Get lives!
Oh and no
I won't be responding to any of you but I'm sure you all will.It is a sickness.
You won't be able to remain quiet. How much would you all
care to bet?
Go on and on on your diatribes and let's see just how brilliant and gloriously glib you all are.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I love the judges, but they are human like everyone else. I remember when poor misguided Bradley was completely stuck for the dog challenge and ended up putting out a wrinkled poorly made bubble blouse and cheap looking skirt he made in less than an hour and Nina was just all over that dress "Oh I can see photographing that for Elle" LOL That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the fashion industry, IMO.
Rather than twisting your words or putting words in your mouth, what exactly in your opinion is wrong with the fashion industry ?
Saying that something is wrong with the fashion industry because one fashion editor could imagine seeing a "plain" outfit photographed for her magazine seems a bit extreme.
I could possibly see your point if Nina actually put Bradley's outfit in the magazine. But condemning her for saying she could see photographing something for ELLE versus actually having something photographed and published for ELLE seems very harsh indeed.
And where did I use the word condemn? I started out by saying that "I love the judges" please tell me where declaring you love someone is tantamount to condemnation? Take a chill pill and if you want a polite conversation come back sometime and we will talk.
Dang tam, someone forgot to remove the target from your back. Also think some have forgotten the show ended almost 3 weeks ago. Seems like your every word gets twisted and when you try to defend yourself, the bandwagon fills up. Take it as a compliment kiddo,
brillke
mainer
October 30, 2006 - 04:07 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I love the judges, but they are human like everyone else. I remember when poor misguided Bradley was completely stuck for the dog challenge and ended up putting out a wrinkled poorly made bubble blouse and cheap looking skirt he made in less than an hour and Nina was just all over that dress "Oh I can see photographing that for Elle" LOL That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the fashion industry, IMO.
Rather than twisting your words or putting words in your mouth, what exactly in your opinion is wrong with the fashion industry ?
Saying that something is wrong with the fashion industry because one fashion editor could imagine seeing a "plain" outfit photographed for her magazine seems a bit extreme.
I could possibly see your point if Nina actually put Bradley's outfit in the magazine. But condemning her for saying she could see photographing something for ELLE versus actually having something photographed and published for ELLE seems very harsh indeed.
And where did I use the word condemn? I started out by saying that "I love the judges" please tell me where declaring you love someone is tantamount to condemnation? Take a chill pill and if you want a polite conversation come back sometime and we will talk.
Dang tam, someone forgot to remove the target from your back. Also think some have forgotten the show ended almost 3 weeks ago. Seems like your every word gets twisted and when you try to defend yourself, the bandwagon fills up. Take it as a compliment kiddo,
brillke
Thanks Brillke I think of it as Jeffrey's family must be on the hunt for dissenting views. I'll just paraphrase them now and say "at LAST someone with a mind THANK YOU"
lol tam
alice
gareth
October 30, 2006 - 04:15 PM
Oh and the other online phenomenon is really sick
I have read over and over again (and not just on this board) how many of you with huge amounts of posts actually think it gives you some kind of status.That is truly sick.How many times have I read
"Oh they are just a first time poster"
As if
because they don't have thousands of posts
pffft they can't be taken seriously or don't have any validity here.
Those poor delusional newbies.
How dare they have opinions when we have put our blood sweat and tears into this site posting constantly and fighting the good fight?
We own this board because we spend endless hours here pontificating our special brand of points of view on everything. Not just PR.
Socrates incarnate you all are.
Having a thousand posts only means one thing.
You just can't shut up and obviously don't have much of a life. This board does not define you but sad that so many think it does.
Now come on. Pontificate. Fight back. Let me have it.
Do what you do best and maybe you'll have 2,000 posts before years end. Oh no - wait
Before tonight's end.Then you will look at how many posts you have racked up and realize just how important you really are.
Sad!
brillke
October 30, 2006 - 05:28 PM
Quote:
Oh and the other online phenomenon is really sick
I have read over and over again (and not just on this board) how many of you with huge amounts of posts actually think it gives you some kind of status.That is truly sick.How many times have I read
"Oh they are just a first time poster"
As if
because they don't have thousands of posts
pffft they can't be taken seriously or don't have any validity here.
Those poor delusional newbies.
How dare they have opinions when we have put our blood sweat and tears into this site posting constantly and fighting the good fight?
We own this board because we spend endless hours here pontificating our special brand of points of view on everything. Not just PR.
Socrates incarnate you all are.
Having a thousand posts only means one thing.
You just can't shut up and obviously don't have much of a life. This board does not define you but sad that so many think it does.
Now come on. Pontificate. Fight back. Let me have it.
Do what you do best and maybe you'll have 2,000 posts before years end. Oh no - wait
Before tonight's end.Then you will look at how many posts you have racked up and realize just how important you really are.
Sad!
Decaf.
brillke
cosmogirl_incal
October 30, 2006 - 07:54 PM
Huh?
My head hurts.
oscarsimon
October 31, 2006 - 12:11 AM
Quote:
Oscarsimon (and et al) apologies if this is going to be redundant but only have a short time and cannot finish all reading beyond this point and feel a strong need to jump in w. my 2 bits of Spice...
Spent many years living in a town in Or. which I believe holds the record for most oddities of the Human species to be contained within a few sq. miles.
I had a friend who invited me to come to a "channelling" on his 90 acre property. A woman would be transmitting/Channelling an Entity who was originally Pleiadian but was now existing in the Ethers having passed out of even that rarified state of existence.
My 11 yr. old asked what we were doing. I said we were going to participate in listening to our friends' friend speak in the voice of a departed "person" (for lack of better description.
" Departed? You mean like DEAD??"
"Well, dear, sort of but they weren't really "alive" in THIS dimension to begin with."
"What, Mom? You mean like ALIENS!?!?
" Well, yes, dear, supposedly. But they have departed!"
"You mean like DEAD ALIENS, Mom???"
" I suppose so, yes."
" OmyGawd! MUTH-errrr!! Can I please please PLEASE not have to go cause if anyone sees me I WILL DIE!!!"
"Now dear-- we like our friend and he really wants us to come and we must be kind and open-minded and you can't stay here by yourself for the whole weekend-- so we are going."
" AAAAHHHAARRRGGHHH! My Mother wants me to DIE of having to be around her crazy old hippie friends!!"
" OK Kid! Can it!! At least your mother gives you something interesting and COLORFUL to be embarrassed by-- instead of just trying to dress like she's still YOUR age and use your slang!!! Suck it up! And don't let me hear you say " Mothership" even ONCE this weekend!! We can stop by Nordstroms on the way home..."
The upshot of understanding gleaned on that long-ago oddly fated afternoon in the country- is that supposedly the Pleadians are much advanced entities who are responsible for Human DNA-- which used to have @ 22 strands or something but was reduced by some other advanced entities who are Paranoid and have no sense of humour.
Occasionally one entity or another will "walk in" IE- take over the body/ identity/ personality of a person on this planet. Folks used to call it "possession" or "pod people".
They live out the persons life for them and somehow this is useful toward re-instating the extra DNA strands which will eventually manifest as a whole bunch of Superpowers (watch "Heros" currently on NBC Mon.)
The message is also that Aliens are actually what we have always thought of as Angels and that they exist extra-dimensionally-- along w. fairies, leprechauns, Dragons, ghosts, demons, God and Harvey.
There are a lot of books about these things that sell very well in the so-called New Age or WooWoo community. The astrological perspective on this sort of takes off in a book called "The Liquid Light of Sex" by Barbara Hand Clow (who also wrote a book on Pleiadians exclusively --I can't recall the title at the moment but it is still in print ) which has nothing to do w. sex but talks a lot about the plant Uranus (Hmmm, waaiit a minute...?)
Indigo referrs to the Crown Chakra which is supposedly open at birth in the latest generation of babies being born on this planet.
There is a book called "Indigo Children" which is actually kind of interesting and worthwhile. Supposes that children are now manifesting higher intuitional capabilities and psychic awareness and power.
All pointing to the evolution of Mankind and the eventual solving of war and hatred and calories in Cherry Garcia. All loving and peaceful and God-centered.
Whether the Pleadians are actually responsible for this is a matter of debate among interested parties. And the parties where this is debated are actually VERY interesting and colorful and wavy and watery and prettyflowermusicnotesIloveyouandmeandeverythingandIcanswim
inthestarlightdon'tneedwaterorclothesandandandhmmmmmmmmmm
So. I moved to Wa.
Where such things are not unheard of but at least they are on disk and easier to keep track of in your hard drive.
I hope this was of some help -- feel free to ask questions-- I will happily pass them along to Engo the Pleadian Entity and will disseminate his replies...
It's a wide weird and wonderful world out there with enough room for absolutely Anything...!
(Hope you actually get to read this and I haven't waited too long past the PR demise deadline for these boards... I keep checking back in case I miss something....)
Blessings.......
chickadee - - if you are still around - - I understand all that you said.
There is more to my story - - but wrong board. My granddaughter age 6 speaks of her rainbow angels - - and people who visit her.
Indigo - crystal - rainbow
oscarsimon
October 31, 2006 - 12:15 AM
Forgot to add: I am an empath - - I do not see fashion - - I FEEL fashion
oscarsimon
October 31, 2006 - 12:22 AM
Oops! . . . . again - - I worked for a metaphysical publishing company. I know many of the popular authors today. Doreen Virtue is exactly as she appears on TVs or Talk Shows (not everyone is). Have not met Chow. I only state - - something IS going on.
IronChef
October 31, 2006 - 08:57 AM
See, now I'm just afraid to post. Having over 1,000 posts here means, according to you, only one thing: I'm a sicko with no life who can't shut up. Nice. Thanks, gareth, for a generalization and a label that makes me feel all chicken-soup-for-the-soul inside.
On the one hand, your first post (not that I'm labeling you a "first time poster" in calling it your first post--it just happened to
be your first post, so please don't take it any other way) states:
Quote:
Please do not answer this. I mean it.
But in your second post (again, no labels here--just that the second so closely followed the first, and both were so passionately critical) you state:
Quote:
Now come on. Pontificate. Fight back. Let me have it.
So, which is it? Which are you really fishing for, silence or smackdown? And if it's the former, does that mean your second post is really only trying to put more enticing bait on the hook? It seems like you're giving us mixed messages to me.
You know what? I agree with you that these boards have gotten far too elitist and cliquish. That's one of the reasons that, regardless of the fact that I have over 1,000 posts, I don't post much anymore. I don't align myself with any specific "faction" of posters, and I don't believe that 1,000 posts gets you a bumper sticker and a button.
What does it get you? Maybe the bragging rights to say "Hey, I've been watching this stuff for awhile, so I might kind of know what I'm talking about." But that's about it. It doesn't make my 1,100th post any better or more weighty than your second one, it just makes it my 1,100th post, that's all. My opinions here have been as unpopular as they've been embraced at different times. But I don't expect a unanimous "standing-O" from points A to B, and that's what makes it interesting.
Frankly, I don't like what the boards have become lately either--seems this one's been all about the posters and their personal vendettas more than the show this season, and the TC2 boards have been one big advertisement for "who's got the best new blog?" Doesn't mean I won't have something to say there now and then, though, and it doesn't mean I expect to be treated like some "anointed one" for my current "post tally" either. So, put the abicus down, already!
You want to call me "sick," for having a certain number of posts? Well, now, that's just wrong on all sorts of levels. You have no idea what specific sets of circumstances allow individuals here to post more frequently than others, and you have no right to toss them all together like that into one pot, IMO.
Not that I owe anyone an explanation, but I'm on vacation for the next two weeks, so I have a lot more "free time" for posting on my hands right now. I'm also a "TV Freak" who engages in more than my fair share of viewing, and I'm a writer with an English degree, so writing (aka posting) is something that comes naturally to me. The "spare time" others might use in other pursuits is utilised by me in posting to message groups and "boards" because that's just what I like to do. So, who's to say that what I like to do is any less valid than the person who'd rather spend his or her free time weeding a garden, composing a song or grooming a cat?
You have valid points, gareth, but you presume too much in the process. You accuse a group of posters here of being "Socrates incarnate," when it looks like you're the one wielding the soapbox, so you might want to check with your "Greek chorus" next time before pointing such philosophical fingers.
Lia
Quote:
Oh and the other online phenomenon is really sick
I have read over and over again (and not just on this board) how many of you with huge amounts of posts actually think it gives you some kind of status.That is truly sick.How many times have I read
"Oh they are just a first time poster"
As if
because they don't have thousands of posts
pffft they can't be taken seriously or don't have any validity here.
Those poor delusional newbies.
How dare they have opinions when we have put our blood sweat and tears into this site posting constantly and fighting the good fight?
We own this board because we spend endless hours here pontificating our special brand of points of view on everything. Not just PR.
Socrates incarnate you all are.
Having a thousand posts only means one thing.
You just can't shut up and obviously don't have much of a life. This board does not define you but sad that so many think it does.
Now come on. Pontificate. Fight back. Let me have it.
Do what you do best and maybe you'll have 2,000 posts before years end. Oh no - wait
Before tonight's end.Then you will look at how many posts you have racked up and realize just how important you really are.
Sad!
gareth
October 31, 2006 - 09:41 AM
I must say so sorry to you.
I meant to come back and amend that for anyone else last night but fell alseep.
Of course I meant that one poster in particular who is always calling everyone hun(which is SO condescending) and kiddo and that gang who have taken this board places I can't believe.
Yes there are lots of nuts and ignorant people online and it is easy to vent and lash out when you are anonymous and it almost feels good.Better do it here than run someone over or go postal I guess.
But why feed into that ?
Why must they always answer them especially in such a
caustic and antagonized way. It is just feeding the fire.
They just cannot stop the fighting . They just can't stop themselves.They go on and on and it all becomes so convoluted and crazy.They get off on it.
If everyone answered my vitriolic(admittedly so) post the way you just did things would remain calm and sane.I actually enjoyed reading what you just wrote and I surely don't deservethis respectful answer as I was a bit hot under the collar.
I was really meaning 'that' gang.
You know who I mean.
Those who constantly point out that a person who only came on board is a troll and it almost reads like a newbie just can't have a valid point of view because DEAR GOD they haven't posted a zillion times.
Some people don't have the time to post a lot is all.
Everyone wants to come on and talk about their favorite show
or rant about it.
Some get evil but why answer that over and over?
It truly is sickening to read and very sad.
When new people come on once or twice they get lost in all the back and forth bantering and anger over who said what and how dare you and they are my friends and GOD .This is so immature.
Half the time they aren't even addressing the right person as sometimes you just hit reply to anyone.
SO sorry again. I did not mean you or anyone else who posts a lot at all. I should have made that clear.
This WILL be the last response but I just felt the need to make that clear.
Quote:
See, now I'm just afraid to post. Having over 1,000 posts here means, according to you, only one thing: I'm a sicko with no life who can't shut up. Nice. Thanks, gareth, for a generalization and a label that makes me feel all chicken-soup-for-the-soul inside.
On the one hand, your first post (not that I'm labeling you a "first time poster" in calling it your first post--it just happened to be your first post, so please don't take it any other way) states:
Quote:
Please do not answer this. I mean it.
But in your second post (again, no labels here--just that the second so closely followed the first, and both were so passionately critical) you state:
Quote:
Now come on. Pontificate. Fight back. Let me have it.
So, which is it? Which are you really fishing for, silence or smackdown? And if it's the former, does that mean your second post is really only trying to put more enticing bait on the hook? It seems like you're giving us mixed messages to me.
You know what? I agree with you that these boards have gotten far too elitist and cliquish. That's one of the reasons that, regardless of the fact that I have over 1,000 posts, I don't post much anymore. I don't align myself with any specific "faction" of posters, and I don't believe that 1,000 posts gets you a bumper sticker and a button.
What does it get you? Maybe the bragging rights to say "Hey, I've been watching this stuff for awhile, so I might kind of know what I'm talking about." But that's about it. It doesn't make my 1,100th post any better or more weighty than your second one, it just makes it my 1,100th post, that's all. My opinions here have been as unpopular as they've been embraced at different times. But I don't expect a unanimous "standing-O" from points A to B, and that's what makes it interesting.
Frankly, I don't like what the boards have become lately either--seems this one's been all about the posters and their personal vendettas more than the show this season, and the TC2 boards have been one big advertisement for "who's got the best new blog?" Doesn't mean I won't have something to say there now and then, though, and it doesn't mean I expect to be treated like some "anointed one" for my current "post tally" either. So, put the abicus down, already!
You want to call me "sick," for having a certain number of posts? Well, now, that's just wrong on all sorts of levels. You have no idea what specific sets of circumstances allow individuals here to post more frequently than others, and you have no right to toss them all together like that into one pot, IMO.
Not that I owe anyone an explanation, but I'm on vacation for the next two weeks, so I have a lot more "free time" for posting on my hands right now. I'm also a "TV Freak" who engages in more than my fair share of viewing, and I'm a writer with an English degree, so writing (aka posting) is something that comes naturally to me. The "spare time" others might use in other pursuits is utilised by me in posting to message groups and "boards" because that's just what I like to do. So, who's to say that what I like to do is any less valid than the person who'd rather spend his or her free time weeding a garden, composing a song or grooming a cat?
You have valid points, gareth, but you presume too much in the process. You accuse a group of posters here of being "Socrates incarnate," when it looks like you're the one wielding the soapbox, so you might want to check with your "Greek chorus" next time before pointing such philosophical fingers.
Lia
Quote:
Oh and the other online phenomenon is really sick
I have read over and over again (and not just on this board) how many of you with huge amounts of posts actually think it gives you some kind of status.That is truly sick.How many times have I read
"Oh they are just a first time poster"
As if
because they don't have thousands of posts
pffft they can't be taken seriously or don't have any validity here.
Those poor delusional newbies.
How dare they have opinions when we have put our blood sweat and tears into this site posting constantly and fighting the good fight?
We own this board because we spend endless hours here pontificating our special brand of points of view on everything. Not just PR.
Socrates incarnate you all are.
Having a thousand posts only means one thing.
You just can't shut up and obviously don't have much of a life. This board does not define you but sad that so many think it does.
Now come on. Pontificate. Fight back. Let me have it.
Do what you do best and maybe you'll have 2,000 posts before years end. Oh no - wait
Before tonight's end.Then you will look at how many posts you have racked up and realize just how important you really are.
Sad!
chickadee
October 31, 2006 - 10:27 AM
Oscarsimon~ I'm still here... was hoping you would feel the need to checkback... glibness not withstanding I am a 3rd generation Intuitive -- my Sufi buddy insists on using the term Mystic-- all this invites all sorts of weirdness on public boards & I would enjoy talking further w. you if you feel inclined -- you may email me at : magicstone8@yahoo.com (I will wait to hear from you for a few days-- then will close the site so as not to invite all sorts of spam/oddities-- have many accts. -- find it useful...)
I love Doreen.Lately I have been reading daily from one of her books-- thought she was a bit "woo-woozy" at first but changed my mind upon reading the Angels book... several of my friends have published thru Bear & Co.-- do you know it?
Anyway- hope to hear from you privately. Wish this lame-oid site had a PM feature that WORKED !! Sad Bravo, Very Sad....makes you look SO outdated / passe / embarrassing....
chickadee
October 31, 2006 - 10:41 AM
Oops (me 2)~ your statement "something IS going on" is exactly what I keep saying in regards to Iceland !! Have you checked that place out? truely amazing.. got interested via the music of Sigur Rose-- intuitive sounds that Transcend-- gotta love a group that lights candles and forms a circle to meditate and focus ONSTAGE prior to performing-- . anyway-- had to say this 'cause the kid gives me grief about saying "something IS going on" all the time and refuses to even stay in the room w. me if there's anything regarding Iceland on TLC /Travel/ NGC ect....
actor59
October 31, 2006 - 10:46 AM
Gareth!
At first you said don't post to you then in your secound post you said fight with you!
Look we all start out as newbies...lol
I think that the gang you mention in "Hon" and other affectionate lingo..( I like Boo myself) is just the way we say things in different parts of the country.
Am I guilty of running to the protection of a poster? YES.
Does that mean that poster can take care of themselves? NO
From your post you have just as much as the rest of us as far as investing our time on a T.V. show...lol
Just because we write on the boards dose not make our time wasted or we do not have a life!!!! LOL!
Personally I wish you had come on sooner in the season it would have been a pleasure reading your thoughts on this PR season! If you have the time and you watch TC why not come and get on their boards you are more than welcome it would be fun to read your comments....sorry you lurked this entire season would of loved to see you post here. Have a great Halloween!
actor59
October 31, 2006 - 10:50 AM
OOOps sorry meant Can't Take care of themselves...lol
mainer
October 31, 2006 - 04:03 PM
Quote:
See, now I'm just afraid to post. Having over 1,000 posts here means, according to you, only one thing: I'm a sicko with no life who can't shut up. Nice. Thanks, gareth, for a generalization and a label that makes me feel all chicken-soup-for-the-soul inside.
On the one hand, your first post (not that I'm labeling you a "first time poster" in calling it your first post--it just happened to be your first post, so please don't take it any other way) states:
Quote:
Please do not answer this. I mean it.
But in your second post (again, no labels here--just that the second so closely followed the first, and both were so passionately critical) you state:
Quote:
Now come on. Pontificate. Fight back. Let me have it.
So, which is it? Which are you really fishing for, silence or smackdown? And if it's the former, does that mean your second post is really only trying to put more enticing bait on the hook? It seems like you're giving us mixed messages to me.
You know what? I agree with you that these boards have gotten far too elitist and cliquish. That's one of the reasons that, regardless of the fact that I have over 1,000 posts, I don't post much anymore. I don't align myself with any specific "faction" of posters, and I don't believe that 1,000 posts gets you a bumper sticker and a button.
What does it get you? Maybe the bragging rights to say "Hey, I've been watching this stuff for awhile, so I might kind of know what I'm talking about." But that's about it. It doesn't make my 1,100th post any better or more weighty than your second one, it just makes it my 1,100th post, that's all. My opinions here have been as unpopular as they've been embraced at different times. But I don't expect a unanimous "standing-O" from points A to B, and that's what makes it interesting.
Frankly, I don't like what the boards have become lately either--seems this one's been all about the posters and their personal vendettas more than the show this season, and the TC2 boards have been one big advertisement for "who's got the best new blog?" Doesn't mean I won't have something to say there now and then, though, and it doesn't mean I expect to be treated like some "anointed one" for my current "post tally" either. So, put the abicus down, already!
You want to call me "sick," for having a certain number of posts? Well, now, that's just wrong on all sorts of levels. You have no idea what specific sets of circumstances allow individuals here to post more frequently than others, and you have no right to toss them all together like that into one pot, IMO.
Not that I owe anyone an explanation, but I'm on vacation for the next two weeks, so I have a lot more "free time" for posting on my hands right now. I'm also a "TV Freak" who engages in more than my fair share of viewing, and I'm a writer with an English degree, so writing (aka posting) is something that comes naturally to me. The "spare time" others might use in other pursuits is utilised by me in posting to message groups and "boards" because that's just what I like to do. So, who's to say that what I like to do is any less valid than the person who'd rather spend his or her free time weeding a garden, composing a song or grooming a cat?
You have valid points, gareth, but you presume too much in the process. You accuse a group of posters here of being "Socrates incarnate," when it looks like you're the one wielding the soapbox, so you might want to check with your "Greek chorus" next time before pointing such philosophical fingers.
Lia
Quote:
Oh and the other online phenomenon is really sick
I have read over and over again (and not just on this board) how many of you with huge amounts of posts actually think it gives you some kind of status.That is truly sick.How many times have I read
"Oh they are just a first time poster"
As if
because they don't have thousands of posts
pffft they can't be taken seriously or don't have any validity here.
Those poor delusional newbies.
How dare they have opinions when we have put our blood sweat and tears into this site posting constantly and fighting the good fight?
We own this board because we spend endless hours here pontificating our special brand of points of view on everything. Not just PR.
Socrates incarnate you all are.
Having a thousand posts only means one thing.
You just can't shut up and obviously don't have much of a life. This board does not define you but sad that so many think it does.
Now come on. Pontificate. Fight back. Let me have it.
Do what you do best and maybe you'll have 2,000 posts before years end. Oh no - wait
Before tonight's end.Then you will look at how many posts you have racked up and realize just how important you really are.
Sad!
you go lia......... all of us have a right to postas much as we want regardless of anyone . sock it to him lol
alice
chickadee
October 31, 2006 - 04:52 PM
Oscarsimon- again_ (apologies to all--just do not have a PM address for her yet)- just needed to add in response to the last line of your message.
crystal- indigo- lavender/blue
Also have a granddaughter and a grandson with "gifts"-- my daughter always saw her "guardian" and I always saw LOTS of interesting things in my younghood.... ~;-)
hope to hear from you via email!
tamarinden
November 1, 2006 - 04:32 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Oh and the other online phenomenon is really sick
I have read over and over again (and not just on this board) how many of you with huge amounts of posts actually think it gives you some kind of status.That is truly sick.How many times have I read
"Oh they are just a first time poster"
As if
because they don't have thousands of posts
pffft they can't be taken seriously or don't have any validity here.
Those poor delusional newbies.
How dare they have opinions when we have put our blood sweat and tears into this site posting constantly and fighting the good fight?
We own this board because we spend endless hours here pontificating our special brand of points of view on everything. Not just PR.
Socrates incarnate you all are.
Having a thousand posts only means one thing.
You just can't shut up and obviously don't have much of a life. This board does not define you but sad that so many think it does.
Now come on. Pontificate. Fight back. Let me have it.
Do what you do best and maybe you'll have 2,000 posts before years end. Oh no - wait
Before tonight's end.Then you will look at how many posts you have racked up and realize just how important you really are.
Sad!
Decaf.
brillke
/agree
getting back on topic before we were so rudely interrupted, tomorrow Rungay is announcing who THEY thought should have won. I think it will be Laura (never give up hope ) lol but it could well be Uli because her clothes are more mass market.
beechlapper
November 1, 2006 - 05:46 AM
It would appear Tamarinden's translation of one sentence (or maybe even
one word) is the basis of our misunderstanding. Let me set up a
situation then give you a sentence with two possible interpretations.
You have discovered that your child has been using drugs.
Sentence : You tell your child that you love her but you also
hate her using drugs.
Does the sentence mean :
1. I love my child but I hate her (the person) for using drugs or
2. I love my child but I hate her actions (using drugs)
Those who have English as their first language would have little trouble figuring out that number 2 is the intended meaning since meaning 1 is highly contradictory.
Those who translate the sentence into another language
could have trouble deciding which sentence was intended based on whether they treated the word "her" as a pronoun or an adjective. If "her" is treated as a pronoun then you would get meaning number 1 (possibly offensive). If "her" is treated as an adjective, then you would get meaning number 2 (not offensive).
This would explain the random nature of Tam's getting into arguments with people. It's not that she is targetted, it depends on how she translates various words or sentences and reacts to her translation.
This is the last post I will make with regard to this issue or anything said by Tamarinden. Her weak command of the English language and faulty translations will only be the source of more arguments.
oscarsimon
November 1, 2006 - 07:53 AM
Quote:
Oscarsimon- again_ (apologies to all--just do not have a PM address for her yet)- just needed to add in response to the last line of your message.
crystal- indigo- lavender/blue
Also have a granddaughter and a grandson with "gifts"-- my daughter always saw her "guardian" and I always saw LOTS of interesting things in my younghood.... ~;-)
hope to hear from you via email!
E-mail sent to aforementioned address
oscarsimon
November 1, 2006 - 08:25 AM
Rungay says: Jeffrey did deserve the win. He did. He absolutely did.
We wouldn't have chosen him, but his clothes and aesthetic are not to our tastes and we're not a fashion editor.
Just needed to point out - - "Eye of the Beholder" - - that Rungay fully admits they have there own preference and are not designers.
I personally fully admit - - I love deconstructed fashion.
Rungay prefers Uli's style.
As a designer, she took as many risks as Jeffrey did, going far outside her expectied milieu and showing a range of clothing that could fill a closet and dress a lifestyle (and bring in a [censored]-ton of money, to boot). We've had to watch each collection come down the runway at least a dozen times and every time Uli's collection just made you feel how thrilling beautiful, well-made clothing can be.
brillke
November 1, 2006 - 10:13 AM
Quote:
Rungay says: Jeffrey did deserve the win. He did. He absolutely did.
We wouldn't have chosen him, but his clothes and aesthetic are not to our tastes and we're not a fashion editor.
Just needed to point out - - "Eye of the Beholder" - - that Rungay fully admits they have there own preference and are not designers.
I personally fully admit - - I love deconstructed fashion.
Rungay prefers Uli's style.
As a designer, she took as many risks as Jeffrey did, going far outside her expectied milieu and showing a range of clothing that could fill a closet and dress a lifestyle (and bring in a [censored]-ton of money, to boot). We've had to watch each collection come down the runway at least a dozen times and every time Uli's collection just made you feel how thrilling beautiful, well-made clothing can be.
Yes, and they also said
"It seems to us that each collection needed to be judged on its own merits and with its own set of criteria simply because each designer had a highly distinct point of view and each had their own customer base to pursue. Ultimately, in such a situation the overriding question becomes "How well did this designer express themselves?"
Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be what the judges did. They settled on one criterion: innovation, which as we've already said is for the most part a [censored] term in fashion. A purely editorial point of view.
Don't get us wrong, it's completely valid to approach a collection from the perspective of how risky it is, but it's also the least practical or useful way of looking at fashion. Risks are admirable, yes, but execution, customer base, practicality, and style are nothing to be sneezed at."
I think this is why so many were upset at Jeffrey winning. Its nothing to do with how he treated Angelas mom or any of his whining. Its a "who would wear that?" thing. Sure, what we see on the runway is nothing like you will see in the stores. I just know that in my mind I cant see Jefferys improving. I do not like the deconstructed style at all. Looks cheap and poorly made IMO. I liked Lauras the most but you can again say "who would wear that?" just like you did with Jeffreys collection. Either way, Jeffrey won. I can so see all four designers being household names, even Jeffrey.
brillke
chickadee
November 1, 2006 - 11:35 AM
Dear oscarsimon- did not recieve the email- checked the addy I left here and it is correct so... technospaz in the ethers-- please try again-- looking forward to an online chat in proper venue.
apologies again PR board community-- blame this personal OT shiite on the LAMEOID INEXCUSABLE BACKWARDNESS OF THIS DURN BOARD!!
Blessings and have a lovely day all.....
oscarsimon
November 1, 2006 - 12:18 PM
They said Jeffrey won according to the criteria set by the show.
There can only be One winner.
It really doesn't matter how Rungay thinks the criteria should be. IMO of course.
oscarsimon
November 1, 2006 - 03:07 PM
You see it is all personal perspective.
Laura's clothes are elegant - - but of no interest to me at all. When I was younger at 5' 8" - 120 lbs. - - I could easily wear anything - - but never felt comfortable in those styles.
Uli's clothes I would wear now because of my age - - and because I'm postmenopause - - I have "fluffy" body (God's cruel joke).
I LOVE deconstructed clothing. To me it is like a work of art. In no way do I see it as sloppy.
But - bottom line - PR had a specific criteria - - Jeffrey fit it best.
tamarinden
November 2, 2006 - 04:28 AM
And even with my "poor" command of the english language I was able to understand this little section of the rungay "judge the judges" blurb:
"Choosing Jeffrey was a statement on the part of the judges. Out of the final four he probably has the least potential to become a household name in the future, but the show managed to gain some fashionista cred by going for someone who not only wasn't liked by a seeming majority of the fans, but also had the smallest customer base. It completely negates any rumblings of "low-brow" or "popularity contest." That's not to say that Jeffrey didn't deserve the win. He did. He absolutely did. We wouldn't have chosen him, but his clothes and aesthetic are not to our tastes and we're not a fashion editor."
Rungay say that they felt Jeffrey has "the least potential to become a household name"... Interesting take. Not sure I agree but its a fun read
tamarinden
November 2, 2006 - 04:38 AM
Quote:
It would appear Tamarinden's translation of one sentence (or maybe even
one word) is the basis of our misunderstanding. Let me set up a
situation then give you a sentence with two possible interpretations.
You have discovered that your child has been using drugs.
Sentence : You tell your child that you love her but you also
hate her using drugs.
Does the sentence mean :
1. I love my child but I hate her (the person) for using drugs or
2. I love my child but I hate her actions (using drugs)
Those who have English as their first language would have little trouble figuring out that number 2 is the intended meaning since meaning 1 is highly contradictory.
Those who translate the sentence into another language
could have trouble deciding which sentence was intended based on whether they treated the word "her" as a pronoun or an adjective. If "her" is treated as a pronoun then you would get meaning number 1 (possibly offensive). If "her" is treated as an adjective, then you would get meaning number 2 (not offensive).
This would explain the random nature of Tam's getting into arguments with people. It's not that she is targetted, it depends on how she translates various words or sentences and reacts to her translation.
This is the last post I will make with regard to this issue or anything said by Tamarinden. Her weak command of the English language and faulty translations will only be the source of more arguments.
My command of english is fine. So if you have a problem with me, its ME you have a problem with, not my weak understanding of english. I studied tennis at 13 to 16 here and speak fluent english.
I think the problem is that was simply disagree and strongly back up our positions.
tamarinden
November 2, 2006 - 04:45 AM
Quote:
You see it is all personal perspective.
Laura's clothes are elegant - - but of no interest to me at all. When I was younger at 5' 8" - 120 lbs. - - I could easily wear anything - - but never felt comfortable in those styles.
Uli's clothes I would wear now because of my age - - and because I'm postmenopause - - I have "fluffy" body (God's cruel joke).
I LOVE deconstructed clothing. To me it is like a work of art. In no way do I see it as sloppy.
But - bottom line - PR had a specific criteria - - Jeffrey fit it best.
Oscarsimon EVERYONE sees it in personal perspective, not just Brillke or me or those with whom you disagree. You said "Laura's clothes are elegant but of no interest to me at all...Uli's clothes I would wear.....I LOVE deconstructed clothing".. that is ALL personal opinion.
oscarsimon
November 2, 2006 - 08:12 AM
Of course - not saying it isn't.
Just making it clear Rungay said under the Criteria PR set up to choose a winner - - Jeffrey was the correct choice. The judges made their decision within that Criteria.
Even if the winner is not their favorite. And they would not set it up that way.
Just made it clear before someone twisted it to mean something else.
oscarsimon
November 2, 2006 - 08:17 AM
chickadee - you can find Oscar and PM from this site:
http://www.theusofe.com/
oscarsimon
November 2, 2006 - 08:30 AM
Quote:
And even with my "poor" command of the english language I was able to understand this little section of the rungay "judge the judges" blurb:
"Choosing Jeffrey was a statement on the part of the judges. Out of the final four he probably has the least potential to become a household name in the future, but the show managed to gain some fashionista cred by going for someone who not only wasn't liked by a seeming majority of the fans, but also had the smallest customer base. It completely negates any rumblings of "low-brow" or "popularity contest." That's not to say that Jeffrey didn't deserve the win. He did. He absolutely did. We wouldn't have chosen him, but his clothes and aesthetic are not to our tastes and we're not a fashion editor."
Rungay say that they felt Jeffrey has "the least potential to become a household name"... Interesting take. Not sure I agree but its a fun read
Tam - - I knew you would go to Rungay - - find the negative they said about Jeffrey and post it here.
I just beat you to it - - posting the positive first.
They also said negatives about Laura - - you gonna post that?
. . . . . let the "One Up" games continue - - - without me. (I only checked back in to see if there was some final synopsis)
tamarinden
November 2, 2006 - 10:03 AM
Quote:
Quote:
And even with my "poor" command of the english language I was able to understand this little section of the rungay "judge the judges" blurb:
"Choosing Jeffrey was a statement on the part of the judges. Out of the final four he probably has the least potential to become a household name in the future, but the show managed to gain some fashionista cred by going for someone who not only wasn't liked by a seeming majority of the fans, but also had the smallest customer base. It completely negates any rumblings of "low-brow" or "popularity contest." That's not to say that Jeffrey didn't deserve the win. He did. He absolutely did. We wouldn't have chosen him, but his clothes and aesthetic are not to our tastes and we're not a fashion editor."
Rungay say that they felt Jeffrey has "the least potential to become a household name"... Interesting take. Not sure I agree but its a fun read
Tam - - I knew you would go to Rungay - - find the negative they said about Jeffrey and post it here.
I just beat you to it - - posting the positive first.
They also said negatives about Laura - - you gonna post that?
. . . . . let the "One Up" games continue - - - without me. (I only checked back in to see if there was some final synopsis)
the diffrence is that I would have posted the whole quote. not just the part that was complimentary to Jeffrey and which left the impression that they would have picked jeffrey themselves.
notevayas
November 2, 2006 - 01:31 PM
A 'Runway' Success
Designer Laura Bennett on Ponytails, Motherhood and Staying Simply Chic
By Jill Hudson Neal
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; 5:50 PM
If you didn't watch the third season of Bravo TV's hugely successful reality show "Project Runway," contestant Laura Bennett's name may draw a blank. The 43-year-old architect quickly established herself on the series as a bit of a tough, sexy cookie, the kind of woman who wears a pair of $600 shoes and a black cocktail dress to the office because it makes her feel better. Pin-thin, husky-voiced, hyper-focused and immaculately turned out at all times, Bennett created terrific-looking ensembles for nearly every fashion challenge, outfits that a real woman might wear if she had the budget and the occasion.
And although she was an early fan favorite, Bennett's name didn't really get thrown into heavy watercooler rotation until she confessed that she was pregnant with her sixth child. I don't actually know anyone who has six children -- well, anyone my age, anyway -- but I started hoping that she'd win for real just because I could see in her eyes how tired and determined she was. The one-time single mom didn't win "Project Runway," (Jeffrey Sebalia did), but she came away with a sizable, empathetic following.
I reached the designer in her Manhattan apartment last week just before her children (who range in age from 18 to three) came home from school. Two weeks out from her due date, Bennett was, not surprisingly, chatty and self-assured.
(So Laura, this baby is number six for you. Does pregnancy get any easier?)
I don't know about the pregnancy, but the delivery gets quicker. The last labor was only two hours. I went to the hospital and husband almost missed the whole thing.
(You were my favorite contestant on the show this year, especially after I found out that you had all those kids! And you were so focused, even when you were in your first trimester.)
Well, that's what mothers have to do. We learn that you have no time to whine and complain because you have people depending on you. You have to get things done; that's how you move through life. Being a mother has given me time management skills and discipline. You get done what you need to do. Motherhood has absolutely made me stronger and able to handle the whole thing
(Yet you manage to look so pulled together.)
Mothers don't usually put themselves first, but I do a little bit. My whole dressing up thing is my way of taking time for myself within the chaos of it all. But I didn't expect to go so far in the competition.
(You sure seemed confident on the show.)
Well, I thought it would be fun for my friends and family to know someone on the show.
(Seriously, that was your motivation?)
I enjoyed watching the show for two seasons and I live three blocks from Macy's where the audition took place. So I just did it.
(Your design aesthetic seems very grown-up, and I mean that in a complimentary way. Have you found that women are responding to that?)
Yeah, and it's very surprising. And I know exactly what you mean by very grown-up. I was making clothes that were right for a woman of my age. For women who want to look great and elegant, and who need things to be easy and simple. A lot of mothers need that.
(Have you always had such a strong signature look?)
I've always been drawn to simplicity, but I've developed a sense of style that's come with maturity and age. I used to be more of a follower when I was younger. My daughter is 18 now and in the last couple of years we'd be out walking on the street and she'd say, "Mom, everyone's staring at you!" Like that was bad! I'd tell her, "I think they're staring because I look great!" That's the difference between a girl and a woman. You have to be comfortable in your own skin and know who you are.
(Well, maybe that's why I thought you were very hip. I mean, I don't know you, obviously, but your attitude about taking the time to put yourself together every day made sense.)
You can't have this many children in an apartment in New York if you're not going to learn to let go of some things.
The fact that I get really dressed up is a conscious decision for me to hold my own in this chaos and caregiving that I have to do every day.
(How long does it take you to get ready in the morning?)
Oh, you'd be so shocked how little time it takes.
(Please don't tell me something silly like ten minutes. That's absurd.)
Absolutely! I can wash my hair and comb it into a ponytail. I'd probably be better off with a little bit of softness around my face, but I go for that look because even if it's dirty, it looks good. I wear dresses every day because they're so simple. I'm not a flats gal, but that's just my choice. I wear one of those long-lasting lipsticks and I wear false eyelashes and I leave them on. I wake up with eyes. It's so low maintenance and easy for me.
I also have a very edited closet. There's barely anything in there. Everything in there I've actually sewn and wear. I have three things that I didn't make. In the last five years, I've purchased only three things that I didn't make.
(I noticed that you rocked a full-on equestrian look for one of the challenges. I didn't see that coming.)
I know it seems wacky, but to me that's my version of jeans and sneakers.
(Yeah, okay, that's a little off-the-wall.)
I'm mean, if I'm going to be in the country, where I have to walk on grass -- and I can't walk on grass in my Manolos -- I'll wear those riding pants and boots. I probably do have a pair of Levi's 501 jeans somewhere in the house but I'm just not a jeans person. I'm not against jeans for other people, but I do expect women to take time for themselves and not put themselves completely last behind their families and children. To try taking care of yourself and see if that makes you feel better and see if that benefits your family.
I don't expect women to do it exactly the way that I do it; that's not what I'm suggesting. If your upgrade in your clothing is a nice pair of trousers and loafers, then my advice is to try it for a week. Get dressed every day a little bit nicer than you would've and see if it makes a difference in your day. See if you feel better. See if people treat you better. I guarantee that it'll happen.
(When you were growing up, was your mom always very pulled together?)
Not on a day-to-day basis like I do it, but when she did get dressed, it was always effortless. She had the pieces nearby that she needed and it wasn't fussy. But she has a lot of dogs, so she doesn't wear cocktail dresses all day like I do.
(You were born and raised in New Orleans. Your look, though, is very Manhattan, very Upper East Side. Have you always had this Audrey Hepburn thing?)
I've always been drawn to simplicity, but I've definitely cultivated my style over the years. I'm going for a very simple, elegant and classic and easy style. It's also very consistent. My friends are never shocked by what I wear when I walk into a room. I'd suggest to women, especially ones with children, that you develop a uniform for yourself and your lifestyle. Make it easy to look great.
(How do you go about doing that?)
Edit your closet. Know what looks good on you.
I'm also into quality as opposed to quantity. I'd rather wear four dresses over and over again than to have ten dresses that aren't made as nicely and don't fit as well. Don't worry that someone's going to say, "Didn't you wear that last week?" Well, yeah, I did actually. What's the big deal?
Shopping isn't a sport for me... but I do buy a lot of shoes.
(How many do you own? Is this a Carrie Bradshaw kind of thing?)
I know I have at least 40 pairs of really nice shoes. Sometimes I'll stand in front of my shoes and I have so many choices that'll look great with the simple thing that I have on that it can be difficult for me to choose.
(This is how Laura Bennett becomes overwhelmed. It's not the five kids; it's in the shoe closet.)
(Laughs). Yeah. But editing is really key to making it easy.
My rules are: Go for quality. Edit your choices. Develop your own style and uniform. And look hard at yourself. Know what works on you. If you need to wear an A-line skirt because you're a pear shape, don't buy the pencil skirt. No matter how many pencil skirts you see in Vogue that month, just don't go there.
(After all of these children, how are you so thin? I'm not hating on you, understand, but what are you doing to make that happen?)
I swear, I think staying busy keeps people thin. Also, I usually start out my morning by running on the track at the YMCA. I run around in circles for 5 or 6 miles every morning and it gives me time to organize my day, put it all in order. I'll go over conversations that I need to have, make lists. It helps me stay thin. And I really feel the endorphin rush from exercise.
(Is that your only time to yourself?)
I have a half-day to myself for just a couple more weeks because my three-year-old started preschool in September. But when I'm standing in my apartment and I'm the only one here, it's a very bizarre feeling. I've grown to learn how to function in chaos.
(What's next for you?)
I'm putting together a maternity line, which was a no-brainer. I'd made all these maternity dresses for myself and I thought, "Damn, I've just designed a collection." I'd like to find someone to manufacture and license that. I also want to do a line of daywear for women, a line of simple dresses that'd offer all women an alternative to sweat pants. A black jersey T-shirt dress or a simple gabardine pleated piece.
I want to keep encouraging women to take the time to take care of themselves and spend a few extra minutes on themselves in the mornings and see if it doesn't benefit their families by boosting their own self-esteem and nourishing their own souls.
notevayas
November 2, 2006 - 01:42 PM
My friend Supe sent me the Laura interview and also this candid interview with Tim Gunn.. enjoy
*******************************************************************
TIM GUNN:
THE MENTOR
text | robbie daw photos | Mark Abrahams
In early September, Entertainment Weekly ran an iconic image of Tim Gunn decked out in Banana Republic on the cover, flanked by a glammed-up Heidi Klum. It seemed to herald the fact that Project Runway—Bravo’s reality show based on fashion design challenges presented to its contestants—had finally arrived. Suddenly, the dapper 53-year-old was television’s most unlikely breakout star. Just don’t expect to see him sitting across from James Lipton anytime soon.
“It’s the word star,” Gunn says early one Friday morning. “I’m starstruck by people. The day I met Sarah Jessica Parker I thought, You have to pick me up off the floor with a snow shovel!”
Since Runway’s debut two years ago, we’ve all either TiVoed it religiously, sat through the marathons or argued over—to quote host Klum—“Who do we love and who do we hate?” Laura Kluvo, who runs the show’s official fan site, Blogging Project Runway, has even rallied fans to sign an online petition aimed at getting Gunn on the cover of People’s Sexiest Man Alive issue. “When I learned about it, I actually thought it was a joke,” Tim says, a bit embarrassed. “Then Laura said, ‘We’re really serious.’” So, did he sign it? “Oh, of course not!”
Three seasons into this high-couture hit, there’s no doubt that he’s asserted himself as cable TV’s most handsome fashion counselor. But there’s just one question most of us are asking ourselves: Exactly who is Tim Gunn?
“I never dreamed about any of this,” admits Gunn, who has worked at Manhattan’s Greenwich Village-located Parsons the New School for Design for 23 years. “And as a matter of fact, just talking to you about it feels surreal. I can’t quite wrap my brain around it all.” Indeed being a part of one of the year’s most-watched cable shows was likely the furthest thing from his mind in 2000, back when he was the school’s associate dean. That year, Gunn had been conducting the search for the chair position of fashion design at Parsons. Although the department had produced talented alumni such as Anna Sui, Tom Ford, Marc Jacobs, Donna Karan and Isaac Mizrahi, Gunn made a shocking discovery.
“This famous department, with all of its great graduates, was really suffering from atrophy,” he remembers. “It was so caught up in its own success that it was afraid to change the formula. Basically the curriculum had remained unchanged for 48 years.” As a result, Gunn set out to push the students into the 21st century, even if they were kicking and screaming. He eventually assumed the Fashion Chair position himself. “The students were hand-sewing the inside seams of all the garments. The faculty would argue with me that it was good discipline. I would say, ‘The students are working hard, but they’re not working smart. You could use a machine to sew those inside seams. Think of the time it relieves so they can expand on
their studies.’”
A few years later, producers for a reality show focusing on fashion design and hosted by supermodel Heidi Klum came knocking. The concept was to have contestants compete each week to design the best outfit within a limited amount of time. Though now we all know Gunn as the strict but lovable mentor to the Project Runway designers, that’s not originally how it was supposed to go. “When I first got involved with the show,” Tim says, “it was as a consultant. This role wasn’t in anyone’s vocabulary. I worked with the producers for about six months before they even thought about it.”
It’s a job that’s cast him into unlikely directions. Not only has Gunn become a household name, he’s often touted by Runway’s contestants more as a father figure than a Mr. Nasty. “Really, it’s the most complimentary thing I could possibly hear,” he says. “It comes from years of teaching. I’ve learned how to read a room, and you can just tell when you’re going too far with something. Then, not only does it badly impact the person with whom you’re speaking, but it’s unnerving to the people around them. I don’t believe in telling people about things that they can’t fix, and that’s more applicable to Project Runway because we have a series budget. At Parsons, if a student buys the wrong fabric, I can say to them, ‘You’ve really made a big mistake here. Go out and change it.’”
As Tim describes it, in a way, he fell into education. Coming from a sculpture and literature background, he initially hesitated when he was invited to teach a three-dimensional design course at the Corcoran College of Art in Washington, D.C., but he took up the offer anyway. Interacting with students was something he came to love, and the element of surprise when they set about doing their project assignments thrilled him even more.
While at Corcoran, Gunn had been offered a position at Parsons early in the 1980s, which he turned down. “I thanked them very much,” he says. “I was flattered to be asked, but I was in a relationship. I was in love. And I liked my work. But then my life changed considerably in that next year.”
Tim and his partner, Bill, had been together for six years. One morning it all ended. “I really have never talked to anyone about this,” Gunn says slowly. “There were two major things that happened. The job advancement that I thought I was going to get, I didn’t. But the biggest blow was the complete erosion of my relationship. It was abrupt. It was like a surgical strike. I still have a big raw spot on me from it, and that was 24 years ago. We were watching television in bed, and he just turned to me and said, ‘I don’t have the patience for you anymore.’ I said, ‘What do you mean? Do you mean you want me to leave?’ And he said, ‘Yes.’ That night, I got all my stuff together and left.”
It’s here that Tim stops with the story, his voice wavering. “I’m about to break down,” he says before taking a long pause. “I’m not gonna go through it again. I’ve never been in a relationship since and I never will be. It was so devastating that I can’t possibly conceive of being more emotionally hurt and scarred than I was by that. I still love him, and I haven’t a clue where he is now.”
The next time Parsons reached out to him, he accepted. Tim left D.C. to begin a new life in New York City. “It just felt like it was the right thing,” he says. “I didn’t feel like I was running away. I have this axiom that I invoke with too much frequency, which is, Things happen for a reason. It led to a whole new path for me. And I have to say, I would not have grown and developed the way in which I have had I still been with Bill.
“It’s funny,” he continues. “I had a colleague in those days, and I was describing to her how sort of angst-ridden I was at that very moment. She said to me, ‘You know, every emotion that anyone can feel is heightened and exaggerated here in the city. Add to that a sexual frenzy to beat the band, and you have the most combustive environment in the world.’ I thought, Gee, thanks for helping! You’ve corroborated everything I was worried about!”
The demarcation line between Gunn’s academic life at Parsons and his newfound showbiz career on Project Runway is often blurred. As far as he’s concerned, however, the show couldn’t be a better public relations vehicle for the school. “Between last year and this year, I would say the applications went up about 20 percent,” he points out. “But you know what’s wonderful? Applications and enrollments are up in design schools all across the nation.” Plus, since Runway is taped at Parsons, the two fashion forces sometimes coincide in ways viewers wouldn’t expect. “When I’m not in the workroom with the [show’s] designers, I’m in my office. The Project Runway-related calls come through on the same phone that the dean calls on. And Heidi Klum’s dressing room is my office!”
While it’s still up in the air at this time whether the Blogging Project Runway petition will successfully land him on the cover of People, Tim did manage to grace the front of this magazine’s latest issue. “I’m grateful and flattered by the honor of being your Leading Man,” he exclaims. “I can’t believe I can say those words! You just caused me to flush in hot perspiration! Sorry. I didn’t mean to be so graphic.”
When asked about whom he would choose as a Leading Man, Gunn responds with another of the small screen’s most debonair personalities in recent years. “Anderson Cooper,” he says. “But I don’t make assumptions about people’s sexuality. I will say that working, living and breathing in the fashion industry, men are gay until proven otherwise. It’s usually a good mode of operation. There are exceptions. There’s the classic garmento, with the cigar and the pinkie ring, and that’s when you hope they’re straight.”
Eventually, Tim has a myriad of obligations to get to, and our conversation ends. The latest season of Project Runway is winding down, and he’s got a book on fashion tips for women he’s busy writing. “What I love about being here at Parsons,” Gunn says before parting, “and it’s what I love about the Project Runway designers—you give them a challenge, and you never know what the outcomes are going to be. When people ask, ‘Where is this going? What’s going to happen with X, Y or Z?’ I say with glee in my eyes, ‘I don’t know! I just don’t know.’”
brillke
November 2, 2006 - 04:51 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And even with my "poor" command of the english language I was able to understand this little section of the rungay "judge the judges" blurb:
"Choosing Jeffrey was a statement on the part of the judges. Out of the final four he probably has the least potential to become a household name in the future, but the show managed to gain some fashionista cred by going for someone who not only wasn't liked by a seeming majority of the fans, but also had the smallest customer base. It completely negates any rumblings of "low-brow" or "popularity contest." That's not to say that Jeffrey didn't deserve the win. He did. He absolutely did. We wouldn't have chosen him, but his clothes and aesthetic are not to our tastes and we're not a fashion editor."
Rungay say that they felt Jeffrey has "the least potential to become a household name"... Interesting take. Not sure I agree but its a fun read
Tam - - I knew you would go to Rungay - - find the negative they said about Jeffrey and post it here.
I just beat you to it - - posting the positive first.
They also said negatives about Laura - - you gonna post that?
. . . . . let the "One Up" games continue - - - without me. (I only checked back in to see if there was some final synopsis)
the diffrence is that I would have posted the whole quote. not just the part that was complimentary to Jeffrey and which left the impression that they would have picked jeffrey themselves.
Tam, nothing you say or do will stop this person. For some reason, they have a personal vendetta against you. I myself have gotten many a laugh at oscarsimons post but, its moved beyond funny. Its become pathetic and frankly, kinda creepy. Bye PR boards, seeya next season. Seeya on the TC boards,
brillke