Oh, OK, thanks for explaining. I agree, faces are purely incidental here. Apparently Barry and azgray feel otherwise, but it seems to me that to rag on what someone looks like exposes a certain, well, deficit in the ability to come up with meaningful criticism of the person's participation. It says far more about them than it does about the object of their disapprobation.
On 4/29/2014 1:23 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Actually, as you know, Richard, I did post a photo of "my own face" a few years ago (along with "Barry's Fantasy Image of Judy"). > Sorry for the confusion, Judy, I was referring to azgrey as "she", maybe it's a "he", but whatever, it's anonymous to me as a face, which was my point. I'm not really serious about people's faces - I don't care what people look like or where they were born or live - only what they say or post. Seriously. It's in the Members section. That's the one azgray is referring to. Apparently he believes he's the only one who can see it, so he feels safe in describing it as what he wishes I looked like. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> mailto:punditster@... wrote : On 4/28/2014 7:38 PM, azgrey wrote: Rather that admit the effects of all those years of cigarettes and seething anger, she calls herself “a fairly nice-looking dame.” Yeah…..right…and TM “reverses the aging process.” Most of us can determine for ourselves who is a fairly nice-looking dame, and who isn't. But, she forgot to post a photo of her own face. That, in itself tells us quite about "as-grey." Go figure.
