Udor wrote:
I hope not! 

SLE Photography wrote:
I tried to help, Udo

I know.

I think that the biggest problem is that Ben is not making the mental transition to the purpose of a runway fashion model...

He is looking at the model and enjoys their appearance as in glamor photography with the model being the center of attention and is superimposing this view to an industry event thinking that the buyers gawking at the models instead of the garments.

bencook2 wrote:
..... Udor brought the 7-kinds-of-smoke on himself with his Udor-ness.

there are none so blind as those who will not see, Ben; none so deaf as those who will not hear.

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:

there are none so blind as those who will not see, Ben; none so deaf as those who will not hear.

Thank you for explaining your & Ben's attitudes so succinctly 

SLE Photography wrote:

Thank you for explaining your & Ben's attitudes so succinctly 

Don't feed the trolls...

SLE Photography wrote:
Thank you for explaining your & Ben's attitudes so succinctly 

both sides have very good points, looked at objectively.  but, one side insists on self-aggrandizingly bullying Ben into silence, and instead he keeps making good points that the other side refuses to hear.

i may not know much about the fashion industry (we'll put aside the fact that my father wrote a women's fashion column as part of his job on the advertising end), but i do know something about economics in general (my major in college), and business models in particular (i'm a retired registered investment advisor).  and, there is much truth in what Ben says in this regard.

for example, there have been plenty of short male and female superstars of the Broadway stage -- dramatic, comedic, and musical.  why?  because that's what the theatrical-performance consuming public wanted -- no matter how much more convenient it might have been for the crew had they been taller.  the notion that the laws of optics or mechanical engineering made it impossible for the critics to see them is simply silly.

given the fact that most of us (myself included) prefer to ogle 'leggy' women, all other things being equal (which is much more likely the case in runway modelling than, say, the Broadway stage), it is likewise silly, or perverse, to refuse to hear Ben's perfectly sensible point that this overwhelming cultural preference cannot possibly be entirely irrelevant to the matter.  because all social phenomena are multifactorial, whether or not it's dispositive cannot be proven, one way or the other. 

but those who self-aggrandizingly insist that it's all a matter of physics and engineering, and try to bully perfectly valid sensical counterarguments into silence, are what's driving this thread.

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
both sides have very good points, looked at objectively.  but, one side insists on self-aggrandizingly bullying Ben into silence, and instead he keeps making good points that the other side refuses to hear.

Interesting... so, there is Ben, coming into that thread and his first line is:

                                 Complete Bollocks!

Please keep in mind that he has no experience in the fashion industry and none in such industry events, yet he attacks me and my OP immediately.

His statements were far from reality of the inner workings of a fashion show and it's industry... if he had the experience, he would not have made that statement.

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
i may not know much about the fashion industry...

So, there is a chance for you to read the additional information provided to get info you didn't have before.

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
for example, there have been plenty of short male and female superstars of the Broadway stage -- dramatic, comedic, and musical.  why?  because that's what the theatrical-performance consuming public wanted -- no matter how much more convenient it might have been for the crew had they been taller.  the notion that the laws of optics or mechanical engineering made it impossible for the critics to see them is simply silly.

You are comparing oranges grown in Florida to walnuts grown in Germany!

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
given the fact that most of us (myself included) prefer to ogle 'leggy' women, all other things being equal (which is much more likely the case in runway modelling than, say, the Broadway stage),

Check page 7 (Jul 02 07 01:22 pm), my post with the picture... you and Ben both make the mistake assuming that an industry fashion show is about the model, when it is about the clothes. I have given a more elaborate description in that post and that the people, the fashion show is for, are focusing on the garments... please, go and read it.

If you are being sent to the shows at Fashion Week in NYC by a company as a buyer, and all you eyeball are the legs of the models... it'll be your last time they send you.

The people that attend the show are not there for entertainment... they are there for conducting business.

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
but those who self-aggrandizingly insist that it's all a matter of physics and engineering, and try to bully perfectly valid sensical counterarguments into silence, are what's driving this thread.

Read it the original post and the illustration on page 7 again (Jul 02 07 01:22 pm).

I find it amusing that you are calling me self-aggrandizing when I am sharing what I am basing my post on and what my experience is.

You feel offended, as if I attacked and insulted your work and your family...

Udor wrote:
....I find it amusing that you are calling me self-aggrandizing when I am sharing on what I am basing my post on and what my experience is.

You feel offended, as if I attacked and insulted your work and your family...

well, let's see now.  (chuckling)  we'll put aside your self-aggrandizing statement in one of those silly what-is-a-GWC threads that amounted to asserting that your knowledge of English is superior to mine, even though, as you pointed out, not your native tongue. 

fwiw, when younger i spent 2 years teaching ESL, my father after retiring from women's fashion and cosmetics advertising taught English for the last 15 years of his life, and his mother spent 40 years of her life teaching English.

i would also set aside your self-aggrandizing statement in a thread about heritage that you're descended from aristocracy on both sides of your family (if i recall correctly).  but, the reason why this self-aggrandizing statement is not being set aside is because of another thread.  i forget the topic, so i can't find it in search.  but it was one of those show-and-tell threads.  it was late, and i inadvertently posted an 18+ picture from my port with [img ] instead of [url ].  you rudely and crudely posted "get rid of the tittie picture".  (if not precisely verbatim, virtually so.)

as it happens, i'm descended from 'commoners' going back to Adam and Eve, so far as i'm aware.  in fact, one of my grandfathers was so poor in his youth that he was only able to attend school for 2 semesters.  my other grandfather, due to the death of his father, became the sole support of his mother and younger brother -- at the age of 12.  as a consequence of having his schooling thus interrupted, not only was he hard to understand in English, he was even hard to understand in his native Italian (more chuckling).

but, humble though their origins were, in comparison with your august lineage, to my knowledge a reference such as yours about a woman never passed from their lips.  it was their shared value that only bullies and punks spoke that way.  but then, they didn't know any aristocrats.  (i didn't either, until encountering you.)  apparently there's a different standard for aristocrats.

i'd like to further point out that the woman depicted is, like you, an immigrant of Slavic heritage, though not an aristocrat.  however, unlike you (please correct me if my assumption is in error), she entered the US school system at age 17, and six years later had earned a law degree and a PhD in clinical psychology.

if you were a commoner, as i am, i would expect you to apologize.  but, since you're an aristocrat, i suppose that would be unnecessary.

going to the merits of the topic of this thread, is it your position that height requirements for runway models are purely a matter of mechanical considerations such as draping and lines of view, and that cultural preferences are entirely irrelevant?  (this is not a rhetorical question.  if my assumption that this is your position is mistaken, i will modify my previous statements accordingly.)

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
i'm descended from 'commoners' going back to Adam and Eve

You actually had relatives named Adam & Eve?
They must've had to put up with a lot of Bible jokes.

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:

well, let's see now.  (chuckling)  we'll put aside your self-aggrandizing statement in one of those silly what-is-a-GWC threads that amounted to asserting that your knowledge of English is superior to mine, even though, as you pointed out, not your native tongue. 

fwiw, when younger i spent 2 years teaching ESL, my father after retiring from women's fashion and cosmetics advertising taught English for the last 15 years of his life, and his mother spent 40 years of her life teaching English.

i would also set aside your self-aggrandizing statement in a thread about heritage that you're descended from aristocracy on both sides of your family (if i recall correctly).  but, the reason why this self-aggrandizing statement is not being set aside is because of another thread.  i forget the topic, so i can't find it in search.  but it was one of those show-and-tell threads.  it was late, and i inadvertently posted an 18+ picture from my port with [img ] instead of [url ].  you rudely and crudely posted "get rid of the tittie picture".  (if not precisely verbatim, virtually so.)

as it happens, i'm descended from 'commoners' going back to Adam and Eve, so far as i'm aware.  in fact, one of my grandfathers was so poor in his youth that he was only able to attend school for 2 semesters.  my other grandfather, due to the death of his father, became the sole support of his mother and younger brother -- at the age of 12.  as a consequence of having his schooling thus interrupted, not only was he hard to understand in English, he was even hard to understand in his native Italian (more chuckling).

but, humble though their origins were, in comparison with your august lineage, to my knowledge a reference such as yours about a woman never passed from their lips.  it was their shared value that only bullies and punks spoke that way.  but then, they didn't know any aristocrats.  (i didn't either, until encountering you.)  apparently there's a different standard for aristocrats.

i'd like to further point out that the woman depicted is, like you, an immigrant of Slavic heritage, though not an aristocrat.  however, unlike you (please correct me if my assumption is in error), she entered the US school system at age 17, and six years later had earned a law degree and a PhD in clinical psychology.

if you were a commoner, as i am, i would expect you to apologize.  but, since you're an aristocrat, i suppose that would be unnecessary.

going to the merits of the topic of this thread, is it your position that height requirements for runway models are purely a matter of mechanical considerations such as draping and lines of view, and that cultural preferences are entirely irrelevant?  (this is not a rhetorical question.  if my assumption that this is your position is mistaken, i will modify my previous statements accordingly.)

Since when did this turn into a biography thread?

Colin Rowe wrote:

Since when did this turn into a biography thread?

Since he had nothing substantive to say he decided this'd be a great way to make himself sound important

Udor wrote:
If you are being sent to the shows at Fashion Week in NYC by a company as a buyer, and all you eyeball are the legs of the models... it'll be your last time they send you.

The people that attend the show are not there for entertainment... there are there for conducting business.

Bears repeating.

SLE Photography wrote:

Since he had nothing substantive to say he decided this'd be a great way to make himself sound important

I'm still getting over the fact that he thinks there's two sides to this, I mean it's like saying there's to sides to a FAQ or ides to the theory of gravity, it's there, debate over..

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
// snipping "I am insecure" rant //

i'd like to further point out that the woman depicted is, like you, an immigrant of Slavic heritage, though not an aristocrat.  however, unlike you (please correct me if my assumption is in error), she entered the US school system at age 17, and six years later had earned a law degree and a PhD in clinical psychology.

going to the merits of the topic of this thread, is it your position that height requirements for runway models are purely a matter of mechanical considerations such as draping and lines of view, and that cultural preferences are entirely irrelevant?  (this is not a rhetorical question.  if my assumption that this is your position is mistaken, i will modify my previous statements accordingly.)

So, despite your superior knowledge of the English language... you have not read the pertinent information, or you read it and didn't understand them because my English is probably not refined enough for you to understand.

Apparently, you have a long time grudge against me, because you are following my posts and love to getting riled up on what I am saying.

Unfortunately, all I know and remember about you is your name in all caps... but I don't remember particular posts by you.

Basically..., your attack on me has little to do with this original post, it was just a welcome opportunity for you to "let me have it" based on prior threads.

I will not repeat the premise of the thread again, since I already pointed you to the relevant information, in a polite manner I may add.

Check page 7 (Jul 02 07 01:22 pm) again... or finally... for my explanation of the purpose, logistics and mechanics of NYC Fashion Week.

Toodles

Udor wrote:
.... you are following my posts and love to getting riled up on what I am saying.

trust me on this one, i'm not 'following' your posts.  but, you have over 9,500.  so, it's not possible to avoid all of them.

Colin Rowe wrote:

I'm still getting over the fact that he thinks there's two sides to this, I mean it's like saying there's to sides to a FAQ or ides to the theory of gravity, it's there, debate over..

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
but it was one of those show-and-tell threads.  it was late, and i inadvertently posted an 18+ picture from my port with [img ] instead of [url ].  you rudely and crudely posted "get rid of the tittie picture".  (if not precisely verbatim, virtually so.)

BTW... what you describe is NOT my style of interacting.

I would have never even said something close to this... not even "virtually"...

Your feelings must have been hurt badly... you are still not over it.

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:

trust me on this one, i'm not 'following' your posts.  but, you have over 9,500.  so, it's not possible to avoid all of them.

Probably 60 percent of those are moderator related and considering that I am one of the first members... there are tons of people who have more than twice my post counts with having less time spend on MM.

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:

trust me on this one, i'm not 'following' your posts.  but, you have over 9,500.  so, it's not possible to avoid all of them.

ok, time to call it quits now, personal attacks are not cool in any form.  If you have anything that you still want to say after reading and understanding the original post and the responses to yours then say it.  Other than that, please stop.

Colin Rowe wrote:

ok, time to call it quits now, personal attacks are not cool in any form.  If you have anything that you still want to say after reading and understanding the original post and the responses to yours then say it.  Other than that, please stop.

**MUAH** runs away!

Udor wrote:
Originally posted on February 11, 2006, revised on January 24, 2007

Since this question seems constantly to come up, I did some extra shots at this current Fashion Week (Fall 2006 Collection) here in New York City (with the purpose of doing an informative thread on my own... soon... but here's the "preview").

The girl in image 1 and 2 is NOT a model, she's one of the finalist designers for "Project Runway", I shot the show on Friday morning... and thought that this is an excellent example for showing the visual effect of "short models" mixed with tall, high fashion models.

The first shows her alone, she's is somewhere around 5'2" and  has actually a pretty face.

The second image shows her walking behind her models, wearing her designs... this shows how funny it would look like if you put a short model into the mix.

The third image is from the show of the designer Chado Ralph Rucci. I shot this image for the purpose of demonstrating the size of the showrooms at major fashion shows... and why very tall models are mandatory, so that the audience far away are able to see the model and the garment she's presenting.

There are actually a few more rows... but I would have cut out the model... and it was necessary for me to demonstrate the room and the model.

In short (pun unintended ), there is a very practical reason WHY runway models have to be tall!

Agencies like to sign models that are versatile and can be used for many different applications..., the more a model is limited (height in this case), the more is the earning capacity limited for the agencies.

It all boils down to economics!

Short "model", finalist of Project Runway, could "pass on her own, if a tad slimmer, but(!)...



... here is the "short model" in comparison to regular runway models... looks funny, doesn't it?!



Putting height and major fashion show in perspective... Would the garment on a five foot model be seen by the fashionistas in the remote seats?

God.that does ridiculous. Jesus. she is short.
I totally agree with alot of things that people have said here. some people just need to accept reality

Udor wrote:
....I find it amusing that you are calling me self-aggrandizing when I am sharing on what I am basing my post on and what my experience is.

You feel offended, as if I attacked and insulted your work and your family...

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
well, let's see now.  (chuckling)  we'll put aside your self-aggrandizing statement in one of those silly what-is-a-GWC threads that amounted to asserting that your knowledge of English is superior to mine, even though, as you pointed out, not your native tongue. 

fwiw, when younger i spent 2 years teaching ESL, my father after retiring from women's fashion and cosmetics advertising taught English for the last 15 years of his life, and his mother spent 40 years of her life teaching English.

Does your big ego demand that your name must be in all caps? Talking about self-importance...

You are sooo humble that you must pull the pedigree of your parents to demonstrate the reason why your knowledge of the English language is in fact superior to mine, who is an admitted (shamefully?!) 2nd language speaker of your native language..., but it's not okay for me to explain ON TOPIC, the reason why tall models are used in industry fashion shows, where the focus is on the garment and explaining my background to demonstrate why my POV has a solid foundation and is credible.

You, Gaetano... are a troll.

TXPhotog wrote:

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
i would have quite a distance to go to equal Udor's rude comments about women.

Ok, I think I've figured this out.  It seems we have a White Knight, folks.  He's off busily finding and slaying Dragons, and somehow has decided Udo is one.

A trip to the optometrist might be in order.  Udo hasn't made rude comments about women.  Even his comments about you have been pretty restrained, given your attacks on him and total lack of qualifications to even be in the conversation.

He posted a simple truth.  Is it the whole story?  No.  It's the story - an accurate one - seen from his perspective as a working professional in the field.  Is there more to the story?  Yes.  There is more to every story.  But we need not get into a 50,000 word dissertation on each and every aspect of the reasons for why short, heavier models are selected for the fashion industry.  It suffices that there are reasons, that the industry does not do these things capriciously, and that the next 5'4" 140 pound model that waltzes onto the forums is not going to "change the industry" precisely because there are reasons.

Udo's stated reasons, partial though they may be, are adequate for the task, and he does a service to the community for articulating them here.  This carping and complaining by people who have no knowledge of their own just to be a White Knight or to pull someone down is, quite frankly, symptomatic of the worst of the forums.

TX,

I've already told him that his posturing isn't worthy of him, that telling a pig it can fly doesn't mean we'll be seeing flocks of them in the sky any time soon.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JAY carreon wrote:

TX,

I've already told him that his posturing isn't worthy of him, that telling a pig it can fly doesn't mean we'll be seeing flocks of them in the sky any time soon.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

On a positive note pigs are noted to have 20 minute orgasms... I am forever envious.

*figured the forum could use some smiles*

CautionHazardous wrote:

On a positive note pigs are noted to have 20 minute orgasms... I am forever envious.

*figured the forum could use some smiles*

Plus their peni are corkscrew-shaped!  And if they encounter a female with the wrong "tread", it can lead to a great deal of difficulty . . .

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
well, let's see now.  (chuckling)  we'll put aside your self-aggrandizing statement in one of those silly what-is-a-GWC threads that amounted to asserting that your knowledge of English is superior to mine, even though, as you pointed out, not your native tongue. 

fwiw, when younger i spent 2 years teaching ESL, my father after retiring from women's fashion and cosmetics advertising taught English for the last 15 years of his life, and his mother spent 40 years of her life teaching English.

i would also set aside your self-aggrandizing statement in a thread about heritage that you're descended from aristocracy on both sides of your family (if i recall correctly).  but, the reason why this self-aggrandizing statement is not being set aside is because of another thread.  i forget the topic, so i can't find it in search.  but it was one of those show-and-tell threads.  it was late, and i inadvertently posted an 18+ picture from my port with [img ] instead of [url ].  you rudely and crudely posted "get rid of the tittie picture".  (if not precisely verbatim, virtually so.)

as it happens, i'm descended from 'commoners' going back to Adam and Eve, so far as i'm aware.  in fact, one of my grandfathers was so poor in his youth that he was only able to attend school for 2 semesters.  my other grandfather, due to the death of his father, became the sole support of his mother and younger brother -- at the age of 12.  as a consequence of having his schooling thus interrupted, not only was he hard to understand in English, he was even hard to understand in his native Italian (more chuckling).

but, humble though their origins were, in comparison with your august lineage, to my knowledge a reference such as yours about a woman never passed from their lips.  it was their shared value that only bullies and punks spoke that way.  but then, they didn't know any aristocrats.  (i didn't either, until encountering you.)  apparently there's a different standard for aristocrats.

i'd like to further point out that the woman depicted is, like you, an immigrant of Slavic heritage, though not an aristocrat.  however, unlike you (please correct me if my assumption is in error), she entered the US school system at age 17, and six years later had earned a law degree and a PhD in clinical psychology.

if you were a commoner, as i am, i would expect you to apologize.  but, since you're an aristocrat, i suppose that would be unnecessary.

going to the merits of the topic of this thread, is it your position that height requirements for runway models are purely a matter of mechanical considerations such as draping and lines of view, and that cultural preferences are entirely irrelevant?  (this is not a rhetorical question.  if my assumption that this is your position is mistaken, i will modify my previous statements accordingly.)

Quoted for the record, and to ask . . .

Why is this sort of ongoing, egregious, unprovoked personal attack being allowed?  Is the brig full?

Kaitlin Lara wrote:

In general...thinner girls can pull off more styles. You don't have to worry about "Will this dress make her legs look thick?" "Will this top make her belly look poochy?"

There's also another aspect that I don't think most people really consider, but it's something that seems very important to me. Stick shaped models are inherently less sexual looking. If I were on a runway, you wouldn't be looking at my hot rack...you'd be looking at the dress. On a runway, the walk is rather sexy to start...add some womanly curves to that, and the clothes aren't the focus anymore.

hmmm good point i totally see that

TXPhotog wrote:
Hmm.  I've always wondered what the plural was.

this truly has been an informative thread

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
to my knowledge a reference such as yours about a woman never passed from their lips.  it was their shared value that only bullies and punks spoke that way.

What exactly is that reference you are talking about all the time..., I usually don't talk negative about women, unless maybe utterly provoked.

So, please, show me where I have insulted some woman!

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
i'd like to further point out that the woman depicted is, like you, an immigrant of Slavic heritage, though not an aristocrat.  however, unlike you (please correct me if my assumption is in error), she entered the US school system at age 17, and six years later had earned a law degree and a PhD in clinical psychology.

Who the hell are you talking about???

I am sure you are not talking about Chloe Dao, the fashion designer coming from Laos who was the winner of "Project Runway" season 2, which I have shown in the original post.

You are not making sense, but then again, it could be me... My grandma didn't teach English for 40 years... and I am still trying to master the nuances of your language.

StratMan wrote:

long & flowy looks better than short & flowy, the industry decided long ago that tall & thin IS the way to go, I doubt the machine will change... 

o/~ big wheel keeps on turnin', svelt models keep on churnin'...roooooollin', roollin, rooooollin'  onna runway!...o/~

strat

I don't see it changing either.

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
to my knowledge a reference such as yours about a woman never passed from [either of my grandfathers'] lips.  it was their shared value that only bullies and punks spoke that way......

i'd like to further point out that the woman depicted is, like you, an immigrant of Slavic heritage, though not an aristocrat.  however, unlike you (please correct me if my assumption is in error), she entered the US school system at age 17, and six years later had earned a law degree and a PhD in clinical psychology.

Udor wrote:
I really don't want to continue this nonsensical debate, but I just have two questions that I really would like to have answered if you don't mind.....

What exactly is that reference you are talking about all the time..., I usually don't talk negative about women, unless maybe utterly provoked.

So, please, show me where I have insulted some woman!

..... Who the hell are you talking about???

i'm referring to your one-line response, "get rid of the tittie picture", after i inadvertently coded this 18+ picture of Dr Victoria Zdrok with [img ] tags instead of [url ] tags:

https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=584278

now that i have forthrightly responded to your question, please respond similarly to mine, which is asked in the hope that we may find some common ground:

.... is it your position that height requirements for runway models are purely a matter of mechanical considerations such as draping and lines of view, and that cultural preferences are entirely irrelevant?  (this is not a rhetorical question.  if my assumption that this is your position is mistaken, i will modify my previous statements accordingly.)

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
i'm referring to your one-line response, "get rid of the tittie picture", after i inadvertently coded this 18+ picture of Dr Victoria Zdrok with [img ] tags instead of [url ] tags:

https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=584278

now that i have forthrightly responded to your question, please respond similarly to mine, which is asked in the hope that we may find some common ground:

????????
How is saying 'get rid of the titty pics" insulting to women???

SLE Photography wrote:

????????
How is saying 'get rid of the titty pics" insulting to women???

Don't even ask.

How many times do I have to tell you men (looking pointedly at UdoR, SLE and TX)?? As a popular saying goes: don't argue with idiots.  They'll drag you down and beat you with experience.

The industry is the industry and no amount of rationalization, justification or pseudo-reasoning to the contrary will change that anytime soon. If some can't accept that, let that be their problem, not yours. There are other angst-worthy things to argue about (like why Libby got pardoned).  (Actually, I don't think anyone is going to argue about it ...)

Mayanlee wrote:

Don't even ask.

How many times do I have to tell you men (looking pointedly at UdoR, SLE and TX)?? As a popular saying goes: don't argue with idiots.  They'll drag you down and beat you with experience.

The industry is the industry and no amount of rationalization, justification or pseudo-reasoning to the contrary will change that anytime soon. If some can't accept that, let that be their problem, not yours. There are other angst-worthy things to argue about (like why Libby got pardoned).  (Actually, I don't think anyone is going to argue about it ...)

Yes ma'am.  It's just reflex to respond with logic & reason.

And on a threadjack note, may I just say what a shame it is you're so far away?
I did a thing today debuting a bunch of new wines including several '03 and '04 Bordeauxs and a few other real gems (my goodness this one little Rhone Syrah/Carignan that smells JUST like cinnamon red hots is amazing) and I have WAYYYY too much left to drink on my own.
Champagne, too.

Oh, and speaking of Champers, I found some folks clearing out VINTAGE Bollinger in splits for $10 a bottle.  I'm going to go drop $150 or so on them & bring them to FetCon 

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:

both sides have very good points, looked at objectively.  but, one side insists on self-aggrandizingly bullying Ben into silence, and instead he keeps making good points that the other side refuses to hear.

i may not know much about the fashion industry (we'll put aside the fact that my father wrote a women's fashion column as part of his job on the advertising end), but i do know something about economics in general (my major in college), and business models in particular (i'm a retired registered investment advisor).  and, there is much truth in what Ben says in this regard.

for example, there have been plenty of short male and female superstars of the Broadway stage -- dramatic, comedic, and musical.  why?  because that's what the theatrical-performance consuming public wanted -- no matter how much more convenient it might have been for the crew had they been taller.  the notion that the laws of optics or mechanical engineering made it impossible for the critics to see them is simply silly.

given the fact that most of us (myself included) prefer to ogle 'leggy' women, all other things being equal (which is much more likely the case in runway modelling than, say, the Broadway stage), it is likewise silly, or perverse, to refuse to hear Ben's perfectly sensible point that this overwhelming cultural preference cannot possibly be entirely irrelevant to the matter.  because all social phenomena are multifactorial, whether or not it's dispositive cannot be proven, one way or the other. 

but those who self-aggrandizingly insist that it's all a matter of physics and engineering, and try to bully perfectly valid sensical counterarguments into silence, are what's driving this thread.

But 4 those Broadway stars, their casting has 2 do w/ who is the best fit 4 the character, not who can best show off the clothes. Broadway actors are cast 4 their acting, singing, & dancing talent as well as their overall look. Runway models are cast to show off the clothes & the designer wants people to notice the clothes, not how hot the model looks in them.

SLE Photography wrote:

Yes ma'am.  It's just reflex to respond with logic & reason.

And on a threadjack note, may I just say what a shame it is you're so far away?
I did a thing today debuting a bunch of new wines including several '03 and '04 Bordeauxs and a few other real gems (my goodness this one little Rhone Syrah/Carignan that smells JUST like cinnamon red hots is amazing) and I have WAYYYY too much left to drink on my own.
Champagne, too.

Oh, and speaking of Champers, I found some folks clearing out VINTAGE Bollinger in splits for $10 a bottle.  I'm going to go drop $150 or so on them & bring them to FetCon 

Trying to dangle them carrots, are you?

MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote:
Y'all are still doin this dance?

It's kinda like "You Got Served"
Udo & Roger & me & a few others are giving them the business & they're too foolish to know they can't step to this