Yes, Jane, I figured that much. But I have no idea what Martyn's talking about regarding what I'm "addressing" rskkiya as.
Apparently only people who think that the majority of women back in the day were absolutely gorgeous are allowed to post here.
And actually, many people I know agree with me, so no, Martyn, I'm not being "extreme."
Actually, Michelle, I think you are missing Martyn's point.
The point is, at least as I see it, is that Martyn was talking about your language to rskkiya in your post of Oct. 25th, which I have italized below (underlining the portion pertinent to rskkiya):
Posted by: Michelle Posted on: Oct 25th, 2004, 10:46am
Rskkiya, Olga, and Martyn,
I said the MAJORITY of women back then were dogs--meaning ugly, unattractive, sourfaced, mannish looking, what have you. Yes, there were some exceptions (obviously--i.e. OTMA, Alix, MF, Xenia A., Irina, Ella, although I don't consider the latter a great beauty--and this is not to say that there weren't others). But many many women I've seen in portraits/pictures etc from back then IN MY OPINION were downright ugly. This forum is open to opinions the last time I checked--although many times in the past it has actually been to the contrary. And, no, rskkiya, I will not retract my "dogs" statement just because you don't like it--infact, you don't like anything anyone says that could undermine your own thoughts. Do you think I care if you consider my sayings immature? Even though I consider you a sourpuss I am quite sure you don't give a d***n. Looking at this objectively, your statement to rskkiya is offensive, insulting, and rude. But as you state yourself, you clearly don't care if anyone considers you immature.
Extremity is any manifestation is seldom a good thing. I hope that, with age, wisdom will come for you.
Edited to add: this is the end of the discussion as far as I am concerned. My apologies to others on this thread for drawing it further off topic. I am vacating the thread forthwith.