It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
point of view it makes perfect sense.


http://www.thelocal.fr/20131107/chic...rding-to-looks


A former hostess at a chic Parisian restaurant has backed up the worst
stereotypes about fine dining in the French capital with claims that
her bosses had a policy of seating “beautiful people” in view of
passersby, while keeping less attractive diners hidden.

The former hostess at the swanky restaurant Georges in the
world-famous Pompidou Centre, told print-only French satirical and
investigative newspaper Le Canard Enchainé on Wednesday that her
bosses enforced a policy of seating “handsome and beautiful” customers
by the front of the establishment, and keeping ugly ones hidden away.

Indeed, the unnamed ex-employee claimed that if she ever happened to
make a mistake in guiding insufficiently attractive clients to the
front of the restaurant, she would land herself in trouble with
management, who told her “it’s bad for the image of the place.”

The restaurant Georges, which is located on the sixth floor of the
Pompidou Centre in the fourth arrondissement of Paris, has a very open
layout, in keeping with the building's famous "inside-out" structure,
and diners enjoying their meal are visible to passing museum visitors.

The establishment is one of a few dozen in the City of Light run by
French brothers Gilbert and Jean-Louis Costes.

Far from keeping the looks-based discrimination hidden, Gilbert Costes
was proud of it, she claimed, personally coming to the restaurant
Georges to emphasise the importance of the policy to staff.

“He drummed these house rules into us, and he was very proud of them
because he came up with them,” she claimed, recalling that Costes
emphasised a very simple classification system for his charges.

"There are beautiful people, you put them here. There are
not-beautiful people, you put them there - it's really not that
complicated," the former hostess quoted him as saying.

J Young


Honesty. Decency. Integrity. Egalitarian.

In article >,
J > wrote:

> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
> point of view it makes perfect sense.



Why?

--

JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)

Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> In article >,
> J > wrote:
>
>> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>> point of view it makes perfect sense.
>
>
>
> Why?

J really shouldn't advocate bad treatment of ugly people. No matter his
looks, he is one ugly person!

--
Malygris

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:47:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> wrote:

> In article >,
> J > wrote:
>
> > It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
> > point of view it makes perfect sense.
>
>
>
> Why?

Why should we care? I am not patronizing a restaurant to be put on
display, I go to eat the food.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:47:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> wrote:

>In article >,
> J > wrote:
>
>> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>> point of view it makes perfect sense.
>
>
>
>Why?

Same reason that some nightclubs only allow certain people in. They
want to maintain a certain image and it is based on superficial things
like looks. They want to attract the celebrities and their followers.
Same reason a Chevy dealer will put the Corvette out in front, it
attracts attention. Same reason you don't see "ugly" people in TV
commercials.

My guess is that this is done far more that we think. Shallow people
put a lot of stock into outward appearances.

On 11/17/2013 8:15 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:47:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> J > wrote:
>>
>>> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>>> point of view it makes perfect sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
> Same reason that some nightclubs only allow certain people in. They
> want to maintain a certain image and it is based on superficial things
> like looks. They want to attract the celebrities and their followers.
> Same reason a Chevy dealer will put the Corvette out in front, it
> attracts attention. Same reason you don't see "ugly" people in TV
> commercials.
>
> My guess is that this is done far more that we think. Shallow people
> put a lot of stock into outward appearances.

I was thinking it's probably a relatively common practice that
Gilbert whatisname didn't come up with originally.

nancy

Malygris wrote:
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> J > wrote:
>>
>>> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>>> point of view it makes perfect sense.
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
> J really shouldn't advocate bad treatment of ugly people. No matter his
> looks, he is one ugly person!
>

Whoever beat him with an ugly stick must be reealllllly tired.

--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu

http://www.cleanposts.com

On 11/16/2013 11:06 PM, J wrote:
> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
> point of view it makes perfect sense.


Really? Change the word "ugly" to "black" and tell me how it makes sense.

Besides, who gets to define ugly? Some of the most beautiful people I
know don't fit what society considers a "beautiful" appearance.

Beauty is only skin deep... but ugly goes all the way down to the bone.

George L

On 11/17/2013 7:53 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:47:51 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> J > wrote:
>>
>>> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>>> point of view it makes perfect sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
> Why should we care? I am not patronizing a restaurant to be put on
> display, I go to eat the food.
>

We should not care, yet many people do. They want to be a part of
something and associate themselves with the "better" class of people.
If you ever want to study this you'll find it in many circumstances.
This is along the lines of proper dress where your shirts must have an
alligator and your sneakers must have a swoosh

"George Leppla" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/16/2013 11:06 PM, J wrote:
>> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>> point of view it makes perfect sense.
>
>
> Really? Change the word "ugly" to "black" and tell me how it makes sense.
>
> Besides, who gets to define ugly? Some of the most beautiful people I know
> don't fit what society considers a "beautiful" appearance.
>
> Beauty is only skin deep... but ugly goes all the way down to the bone.


Bullshit! That's got to be the stupidest statement ever.

Face it, obesity is the very definition of ugly. Who can blame a
restaurant manager who wishes to hide the ugliness of overeating
when he is in the very business of selling overeating? He might
be a hypocrite but he's not stupid.

--
Sir Gregory

On 11/17/2013 11:03 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:
> "George Leppla" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 11/16/2013 11:06 PM, J wrote:
>>> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>>> point of view it makes perfect sense.
>>
>>
>> Really? Change the word "ugly" to "black" and tell me how it makes sense.
>>
>> Besides, who gets to define ugly? Some of the most beautiful people I know
>> don't fit what society considers a "beautiful" appearance.
>>
>> Beauty is only skin deep... but ugly goes all the way down to the bone.
>
>
> Bullshit! That's got to be the stupidest statement ever.


Nah... what was stupid was that I fell for a cross-posted anger piece
designed to give the anonymous trolls something to play with.

My BS meter must need re-calibrating but until I get that done "Sir
Gregory" <snarf> and his/her playmates in their other newsgroups will
have to move along without me.

George L

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 21:06:13 -0800, J > wrote:

>It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>point of view it makes perfect sense.
>
>
>http://www.thelocal.fr/20131107/chic...rding-to-looks
>
>
>A former hostess at a chic Parisian restaurant has backed up the worst
>stereotypes about fine dining in the French capital with claims that
>her bosses had a policy of seating “beautiful people” in view of
>passersby, while keeping less attractive diners hidden.
>
>The former hostess at the swanky restaurant Georges in the
>world-famous Pompidou Centre, told print-only French satirical and
>investigative newspaper Le Canard Enchainé on Wednesday that her
>bosses enforced a policy of seating “handsome and beautiful” customers
>by the front of the establishment, and keeping ugly ones hidden away.
>
>Indeed, the unnamed ex-employee claimed that if she ever happened to
>make a mistake in guiding insufficiently attractive clients to the
>front of the restaurant, she would land herself in trouble with
>management, who told her “it’s bad for the image of the place.”
>
>The restaurant Georges, which is located on the sixth floor of the
>Pompidou Centre in the fourth arrondissement of Paris, has a very open
>layout, in keeping with the building's famous "inside-out" structure,
>and diners enjoying their meal are visible to passing museum visitors.
>
>The establishment is one of a few dozen in the City of Light run by
>French brothers Gilbert and Jean-Louis Costes.
>
>Far from keeping the looks-based discrimination hidden, Gilbert Costes
>was proud of it, she claimed, personally coming to the restaurant
>Georges to emphasise the importance of the policy to staff.
>
>“He drummed these house rules into us, and he was very proud of them
>because he came up with them,” she claimed, recalling that Costes
>emphasised a very simple classification system for his charges.
>
>"There are beautiful people, you put them here. There are
>not-beautiful people, you put them there - it's really not that
>complicated," the former hostess quoted him as saying.
>
>J Young

>
>Honesty. Decency. Integrity. Egalitarian.


Thought "beautiful people" were always seated by the restrooms so that
after a fine meal, they could discretely excuse themselves, shove
their fingers down their throat, and vomit until they were beautiful
again. Of course, with the smell of vomit on their lips and the
stench of laxatives from the other end, beautiful people make lousy
sex partners... unless you are into those odors...

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:24:32 -0600, George Leppla
> wrote:

> My BS meter must need re-calibrating but until I get that done "Sir
> Gregory" <snarf> and his/her playmates in their other newsgroups will
> have to move along without me.

I'm killing the subject too.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 2013-11-17 11:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> We should not care, yet many people do. They want to be a part of
> something and associate themselves with the "better" class of people. If
> you ever want to study this you'll find it in many circumstances. This
> is along the lines of proper dress where your shirts must have an
> alligator and your sneakers must have a swoosh


Would you want to belong to a club that had you as a member?
;-)

Ever notice the people in brochures for cruises, resorts, apartment complexes - - same deal. Everyone in the picture is youngish, healthy, well-heeled, smiling, slim and carefree. Same with the ED ads - the guy is always fiftyish but in good shape, and the female is always a good bit younger. Silent message: you TOO can snag a new, young wife or girlfriend and manage to keep (it) up with her. OH, if only life were all so simple.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:55:14 -0600, duke > wrote:

> The Dukester, American-American

If you're not 100% "Native American" you don't belong here.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:55:14 -0600, duke > wrote:
>
>> The Dukester, American-American
>
> If you're not 100% "Native American" you don't belong here.
>

That's what First Nations said when your white forebears stepped off the
boat, but did you listen? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu

http://www.cleanposts.com

In article >,
George Leppla > wrote:

> On 11/16/2013 11:06 PM, J wrote:
> > It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
> > point of view it makes perfect sense.
>
>
> Really? Change the word "ugly" to "black" and tell me how it makes sense.
>
> Besides, who gets to define ugly? Some of the most beautiful people I
> know don't fit what society considers a "beautiful" appearance.

I asked "J" about this the last time he brought up punishing the ugly
(was it last week??). He never responded; I wonder why.

Hey, "J", who defines who is ugly and who is pretty?


> Beauty is only skin deep... but ugly goes all the way down to the bone.

As we see here every day among our trolls.

--

JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:33:40 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> wrote:

>In article >,
> George Leppla > wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/2013 11:06 PM, J wrote:
>> > It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>> > point of view it makes perfect sense.
>>
>>
>> Really? Change the word "ugly" to "black" and tell me how it makes sense.
>>
>> Besides, who gets to define ugly? Some of the most beautiful people I
>> know don't fit what society considers a "beautiful" appearance.
>
>I asked "J" about this the last time he brought up punishing the ugly
>(was it last week??). He never responded; I wonder why.
>
>Hey, "J", who defines who is ugly and who is pretty?


Society as a whole will generally make that assessment. Which
restaurant do you think would draw more of a crowd, with everything
else being equal? Restaurant #1 has strategically seated a contingent
of 'Victoria's Secrets' models so that they are visible to the public
eye from both outside and inside the restaurant. Restaurant #2 has
done the same exact thing but instead they used all the contestants
from a 'Susan Boyle Look-a-Like Contest'. Which establishment do you
HONESTLY think will attract more patrons into their establishment?

J Young


Honesty. Decency. Integrity. Egalitarian.

In article >,
J > wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:33:40 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > George Leppla > wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/16/2013 11:06 PM, J wrote:
> >> > It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
> >> > point of view it makes perfect sense.
> >>
> >>
> >> Really? Change the word "ugly" to "black" and tell me how it makes sense.
> >>
> >> Besides, who gets to define ugly? Some of the most beautiful people I
> >> know don't fit what society considers a "beautiful" appearance.
> >
> >I asked "J" about this the last time he brought up punishing the ugly
> >(was it last week??). He never responded; I wonder why.
> >
> >Hey, "J", who defines who is ugly and who is pretty?
>
>
> Society as a whole will generally make that assessment. Which
> restaurant do you think would draw more of a crowd, with everything
> else being equal? Restaurant #1 has strategically seated a contingent
> of 'Victoria's Secrets' models so that they are visible to the public
> eye from both outside and inside the restaurant. Restaurant #2 has
> done the same exact thing but instead they used all the contestants
> from a 'Susan Boyle Look-a-Like Contest'. Which establishment do you
> HONESTLY think will attract more patrons into their establishment?


So you support bigotry.

Oh, wait, we already knew that.

And what the **** is wrong with Susan Boyle. She's a beautiful woman.
Not pretty, but definitely beautiful. (And I'll bet you have no idea
what the difference is.)

Seriously, the only thing seeing a gaggle of models would tell me is
that the food is crap in teensy portions. Who wants that?

--

JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)

On Monday, November 18, 2013 2:52:04 AM UTC-6, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>
> And what the **** is wrong with Susan Boyle. She's a beautiful woman.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> Not pretty, but definitely beautiful. (And I'll bet you have no idea
>
> what the difference is.)
>
Stupid semantics. The discussion was about the physical appearance of
the customers. I suspect that you're of sub-par physical attractiveness.
>
>
> JD
>
>
>
> "If our country is going broke, let it be from
>
> feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
>
> And not from pampering the rich and fighting
>
> wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)

Now, *that*, I agree with.

--Bryan sex+

On Sunday, November 17, 2013 12:38:57 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 21:06:13 -0800, J > wrote:
>
>
>
> >It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>
> >point of view it makes perfect sense.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >http://www.thelocal.fr/20131107/chic...rding-to-looks
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >A former hostess at a chic Parisian restaurant has backed up the worst
>
> >stereotypes about fine dining in the French capital with claims that
>
> >her bosses had a policy of seating “beautiful people” in view of
>
> >passersby, while keeping less attractive diners hidden.
>
> >
>
> >The former hostess at the swanky restaurant Georges in the
>
> >world-famous Pompidou Centre, told print-only French satirical and
>
> >investigative newspaper Le Canard Enchainé on Wednesday that her
>
> >bosses enforced a policy of seating “handsome and beautiful” customers
>
> >by the front of the establishment, and keeping ugly ones hidden away.
>
> >
>
> >Indeed, the unnamed ex-employee claimed that if she ever happened to
>
> >make a mistake in guiding insufficiently attractive clients to the
>
> >front of the restaurant, she would land herself in trouble with
>
> >management, who told her “it’s bad for the image of the place.”
>
> >
>
> >The restaurant Georges, which is located on the sixth floor of the
>
> >Pompidou Centre in the fourth arrondissement of Paris, has a very open
>
> >layout, in keeping with the building's famous "inside-out" structure,
>
> >and diners enjoying their meal are visible to passing museum visitors.
>
> >
>
> >The establishment is one of a few dozen in the City of Light run by
>
> >French brothers Gilbert and Jean-Louis Costes.
>
> >
>
> >Far from keeping the looks-based discrimination hidden, Gilbert Costes
>
> >was proud of it, she claimed, personally coming to the restaurant
>
> >Georges to emphasise the importance of the policy to staff.
>
> >
>
> >“He drummed these house rules into us, and he was very proud of them
>
> >because he came up with them,” she claimed, recalling that Costes
>
> >emphasised a very simple classification system for his charges.
>
> >
>
> >"There are beautiful people, you put them here. There are
>
> >not-beautiful people, you put them there - it's really not that
>
> >complicated," the former hostess quoted him as saying.
>
> >
>
> >J Young
>
>
>
> >
>
> >Honesty. Decency. Integrity. Egalitarian.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thought "beautiful people" were always seated by the restrooms so that
>
> after a fine meal, they could discretely excuse themselves, shove
>
> their fingers down their throat, and vomit until they were beautiful
>
> again. Of course, with the smell of vomit on their lips and the
>
> stench of laxatives from the other end, beautiful people make lousy
>
> sex partners... unless you are into those odors...

I've found that beauty isn't really correlated with smell or taste.

--Bryan

On Sunday, November 17, 2013 2:10:20 PM UTC-5, Kalmia wrote:
> Ever notice the people in brochures for cruises, resorts, apartment complexes - - same deal. Everyone in the picture is youngish, healthy, well-heeled, smiling, slim and carefree. Same with the ED ads - the guy is always fiftyish but in good shape, and the female is always a good bit younger. Silent message: you TOO can snag a new, young wife or girlfriend and manage to keep (it) up with her. OH, if only life were all so simple.

Unless they're playing shuffleboard!

"Bryan-TGWWW" > wrote in message
...

> Stupid semantics. The discussion was about the physical appearance of
> the customers. I suspect that you're of sub-par physical attractiveness.

Well, we've seen your pic too. You might be attractive to some, and not so
much to others. It truly is in the eye of the beholder.

Cheri

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:52:04 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> wrote:

>In article >,
> J > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:33:40 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > George Leppla > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 11/16/2013 11:06 PM, J wrote:
>> >> > It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>> >> > point of view it makes perfect sense.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Really? Change the word "ugly" to "black" and tell me how it makes sense.
>> >>
>> >> Besides, who gets to define ugly? Some of the most beautiful people I
>> >> know don't fit what society considers a "beautiful" appearance.
>> >
>> >I asked "J" about this the last time he brought up punishing the ugly
>> >(was it last week??). He never responded; I wonder why.
>> >
>> >Hey, "J", who defines who is ugly and who is pretty?
>>
>>
>> Society as a whole will generally make that assessment. Which
>> restaurant do you think would draw more of a crowd, with everything
>> else being equal? Restaurant #1 has strategically seated a contingent
>> of 'Victoria's Secrets' models so that they are visible to the public
>> eye from both outside and inside the restaurant. Restaurant #2 has
>> done the same exact thing but instead they used all the contestants
>> from a 'Susan Boyle Look-a-Like Contest'. Which establishment do you
>> HONESTLY think will attract more patrons into their establishment?
>
>
>So you support bigotry.
>
>Oh, wait, we already knew that.
>
>And what the **** is wrong with Susan Boyle. She's a beautiful woman.
>Not pretty, but definitely beautiful. (And I'll bet you have no idea
>what the difference is.)


Unless you happen to know her personally ( which is a possibility ),
how did you come to that conclusion?

>
>Seriously, the only thing seeing a gaggle of models would tell me is
>that the food is crap in teensy portions. Who wants that?


You've managed to answer in your usual fashion; hurls insults at me
and not answer the question.

On 2013-11-18 3:47 PM, J wrote:

>
>>
>> Oh, wait, we already knew that.
>>
>> And what the **** is wrong with Susan Boyle. She's a beautiful woman.
>> Not pretty, but definitely beautiful. (And I'll bet you have no idea
>> what the difference is.)
>
>
> Unless you happen to know her personally ( which is a possibility ),
> how did you come to that conclusion?
>
>>
>> Seriously, the only thing seeing a gaggle of models would tell me is
>> that the food is crap in teensy portions. Who wants that?
>
>
> You've managed to answer in your usual fashion; hurls insults at me
> and not answer the question.
>


Crossposted into the usual troll nests. It was mildly interesting that
someone would try to make a thread on something supposedly reported to a
satirical paper. Now we have someone getting defensive about Susan
Boyle??? Come on. She fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on
the way down. That was part of her charm, that she could be so
unfortunate looking and sing like an angel.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...

> Crossposted into the usual troll nests. It was mildly interesting that
> someone would try to make a thread on something supposedly reported to a
> satirical paper. Now we have someone getting defensive about Susan
> Boyle??? Come on. She fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on
> the way down. That was part of her charm, that she could be so
> unfortunate looking and sing like an angel.

I don't think she's ugly at all. She has a very pleasant face IMO.

Cheri

On 11/18/2013 5:50 PM, Cheri wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Crossposted into the usual troll nests. It was mildly interesting that
>> someone would try to make a thread on something supposedly reported to
>> a satirical paper. Now we have someone getting defensive about Susan
>> Boyle??? Come on. She fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch
>> on the way down. That was part of her charm, that she could be so
>> unfortunate looking and sing like an angel.
>
> I don't think she's ugly at all. She has a very pleasant face IMO.
>
>

Beer helps. Lots and lots and lots of beer.

On 2013-11-17 05:06:13 +0000, J said:

> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
> point of view it makes perfect sense.

It makes perfect sense to anyone, that's the reason so many places do
it. Nothing French, Parisian or Pompidou centerish about it.

> http://www.thelocal.fr/20131107/chic...rding-to-looks
>
>
> A former hostess at a chic Parisian restaurant has backed up the worst
> stereotypes about fine dining in the French capital with claims that
> her bosses had a policy of seating “beautiful people” in view of
> passersby, while keeping less attractive diners hidden.

> "There are beautiful people, you put them here. There are
> not-beautiful people, you put them there - it's really not that
> complicated," the former hostess quoted him as saying.

Of course it isn't. Besides me and my wife appreciate the views we
consistently get there by the window.

On 2013-11-18 22:50:36 +0000, Cheri said:

> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Crossposted into the usual troll nests. It was mildly interesting that
>> someone would try to make a thread on something supposedly reported to
>> a satirical paper. Now we have someone getting defensive about Susan
>> Boyle??? Come on. She fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on
>> the way down. That was part of her charm, that she could be so
>> unfortunate looking and sing like an angel.
>
> I don't think she's ugly at all. She has a very pleasant face IMO.

There's a big difference between "not beautiful" and ugly. Boyle is
not ugly, and she isn't beautiful either. She's what we use to call
normal or average.

It reminds me that so often in the USA people are celebrities or
"losers". Just have the two categories and inexplicably every service
job is staffed by a "loser" but some folk's perspective.

In article >,
J > wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:52:04 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > J > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:33:40 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > George Leppla > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 11/16/2013 11:06 PM, J wrote:
> >> >> > It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
> >> >> > point of view it makes perfect sense.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Really? Change the word "ugly" to "black" and tell me how it makes
> >> >> sense.
> >> >>
> >> >> Besides, who gets to define ugly? Some of the most beautiful people I
> >> >> know don't fit what society considers a "beautiful" appearance.
> >> >
> >> >I asked "J" about this the last time he brought up punishing the ugly
> >> >(was it last week??). He never responded; I wonder why.
> >> >
> >> >Hey, "J", who defines who is ugly and who is pretty?
> >>
> >>
> >> Society as a whole will generally make that assessment. Which
> >> restaurant do you think would draw more of a crowd, with everything
> >> else being equal? Restaurant #1 has strategically seated a contingent
> >> of 'Victoria's Secrets' models so that they are visible to the public
> >> eye from both outside and inside the restaurant. Restaurant #2 has
> >> done the same exact thing but instead they used all the contestants
> >> from a 'Susan Boyle Look-a-Like Contest'. Which establishment do you
> >> HONESTLY think will attract more patrons into their establishment?
> >
> >
> >So you support bigotry.
> >
> >Oh, wait, we already knew that.
> >
> >And what the **** is wrong with Susan Boyle. She's a beautiful woman.
> >Not pretty, but definitely beautiful. (And I'll bet you have no idea
> >what the difference is.)
>
>
> Unless you happen to know her personally ( which is a possibility ),
> how did you come to that conclusion?

Why do I have to know her personally?


> >Seriously, the only thing seeing a gaggle of models would tell me is
> >that the food is crap in teensy portions. Who wants that?
>
>
> You've managed to answer in your usual fashion; hurls insults at me
> and not answer the question.

What question? You're a bigot.

--

JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:35:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> wrote:

>In article >,
> J > wrote:
>
>> >
>> >And what the **** is wrong with Susan Boyle. She's a beautiful woman.
>> >Not pretty, but definitely beautiful. (And I'll bet you have no idea
>> >what the difference is.)
>>
>>
>> Unless you happen to know her personally ( which is a possibility ),
>> how did you come to that conclusion?
>
>Why do I have to know her personally?
>

How else would you know that she is a 'beautiful' person? For all you
know, she might be a nasty bitch who's best asset is her looks.

>
>> >Seriously, the only thing seeing a gaggle of models would tell me is
>> >that the food is crap in teensy portions. Who wants that?


You are showing your bigotry towards slim, attractive women.

>>
>>
>> You've managed to answer in your usual fashion; hurls insults at me
>> and not answer the question.
>
>What question? You're a bigot.


The same exact question I previously asked before you tried to divert
the subject:

Society as a whole will generally make that assessment. Which
restaurant do you think would draw more of a crowd, with everything
else being equal? Restaurant #1 has strategically seated a contingent
of 'Victoria's Secrets' models so that they are visible to the public
eye from both outside and inside the restaurant. Restaurant #2 has
done the same exact thing but instead they used all the contestants
from a 'Susan Boyle Look-a-Like Contest'. Which establishment do you
HONESTLY think will attract more patrons into their establishment?
J Young


Honesty. Decency. Integrity. Egalitarian.

In article >,
J > wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:35:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > J > wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >And what the **** is wrong with Susan Boyle. She's a beautiful woman.
> >> >Not pretty, but definitely beautiful. (And I'll bet you have no idea
> >> >what the difference is.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Unless you happen to know her personally ( which is a possibility ),
> >> how did you come to that conclusion?
> >
> >Why do I have to know her personally?
> >
>
> How else would you know that she is a 'beautiful' person? For all you
> know, she might be a nasty bitch who's best asset is her looks.
>
> >
> >> >Seriously, the only thing seeing a gaggle of models would tell me is
> >> >that the food is crap in teensy portions. Who wants that?
>
>
> You are showing your bigotry towards slim, attractive women.

Where?

I was criticizing the idiocy of fancy restaurants who don't provide
enough food to satisfy a toddler and declare their stinginess art.


> >> You've managed to answer in your usual fashion; hurls insults at me
> >> and not answer the question.
> >
> >What question? You're a bigot.
>
>
> The same exact question I previously asked before you tried to divert
> the subject:
>
> Society as a whole will generally make that assessment. Which
> restaurant do you think would draw more of a crowd, with everything
> else being equal? Restaurant #1 has strategically seated a contingent
> of 'Victoria's Secrets' models so that they are visible to the public
> eye from both outside and inside the restaurant. Restaurant #2 has
> done the same exact thing but instead they used all the contestants
> from a 'Susan Boyle Look-a-Like Contest'. Which establishment do you
> HONESTLY think will attract more patrons into their establishment?

I think that most sane people do not look at the other patrons when they
go to a restaurant.

Except, of course, for the kind of fancy schmancy place where appearance
is more important than the food.

--

JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 9:06:13 PM UTC-8, J wrote:

> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
> point of view it makes perfect sense.
>
>
> http://www.thelocal.fr/20131107/chic...rding-to-looks
>
> A former hostess at a chic Parisian restaurant has backed up the worst
> stereotypes about fine dining in the French capital with claims that
> her bosses had a policy of seating “beautiful people” in view of
> passersby, while keeping less attractive diners hidden.
>

Well, duh. You want to attract customers, not repel them.

>
> The restaurant Georges, which is located on the sixth floor of the
> Pompidou Centre in the fourth arrondissement of Paris, has a very open
> layout, in keeping with the building's famous "inside-out" structure,
> and diners enjoying their meal are visible to passing museum visitors.
>

Which is odd considering how butt-ugly the Pompidou Center is. And it's
located in a pretty ugly neighborhood. One of the capital's few equivalents
of WalMart is located nearby. (A hypermarche whose name escapes me.)


>
> "There are beautiful people, you put them here. There are
> not-beautiful people, you put them there - it's really not that
> complicated," the former hostess quoted him as saying.
>

When my wife and I were comparative newlyweds, the host at the WashBaG sat
us in the window. I felt flattered that they considered us attractive enough
to attract other customers.

In article >
J > wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:35:47 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > J > wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >And what the **** is wrong with Susan Boyle. She's a beautiful woman.
> >> >Not pretty, but definitely beautiful. (And I'll bet you have no idea
> >> >what the difference is.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Unless you happen to know her personally ( which is a possibility ),
> >> how did you come to that conclusion?
> >
> >Why do I have to know her personally?
> >
>
> How else would you know that she is a 'beautiful' person? For all you
> know, she might be a nasty bitch who's best asset is her looks.
>
> >
> >> >Seriously, the only thing seeing a gaggle of models would tell me is
> >> >that the food is crap in teensy portions. Who wants that?
>
>
> You are showing your bigotry towards slim, attractive women.

Some things are habitual.

> wrote in message
...


When my wife and I were comparative newlyweds, the host at the WashBaG sat
us in the window. I felt flattered that they considered us attractive enough
to attract other customers.


===========

LOL, whatever.

Cheri

On 2013-11-19 05:27:22 +0000, said:

>> The restaurant Georges, which is located on the sixth floor of the
>> Pompidou Centre in the fourth arrondissement of Paris, has a very open
>> layout, in keeping with the building's famous "inside-out" structure,
>> and diners enjoying their meal are visible to passing museum visitors.
>
> Which is odd considering how butt-ugly the Pompidou Center is.

You got that right: It's a bloody eyesore.

> And it's located in a pretty ugly neighborhood. One of the capital's
> few equivalents
> of WalMart is located nearby. (A hypermarche whose name escapes me.)

I think the neighborhood has some great little areas. Just one block
south and one moving west there is an incredible charming area.

"gtr" > wrote in message news:2013111817380316469-xxx@yyyzzz...
> On 2013-11-17 05:06:13 +0000, J said:
>
>> It may seem a bit cruel to those deemed 'ugly', but from a business
>> point of view it makes perfect sense.
>
> It makes perfect sense to anyone, that's the reason so many places do it.
> Nothing French, Parisian or Pompidou centerish about it.
>
>> http://www.thelocal.fr/20131107/chic...rding-to-looks A
>> former hostess at a chic Parisian restaurant has backed up the worst
>> stereotypes about fine dining in the French capital with claims that
>> her bosses had a policy of seating "beautiful people" in view of
>> passersby, while keeping less attractive diners hidden.
>
>> "There are beautiful people, you put them here. There are
>> not-beautiful people, you put them there - it's really not that
>> complicated," the former hostess quoted him as saying.
>
> Of course it isn't. Besides me and my wife appreciate the views we
> consistently get there by the window.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Monday, November 18, 2013 1:14:16 PM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
> "Bryan-TGWWW" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Stupid semantics. The discussion was about the physical appearance of
>
> > the customers. I suspect that you're of sub-par physical attractiveness.
>
>
>
> Well, we've seen your pic too. You might be attractive to some, and not so
>
> much to others.

My appearance is less germane, as I'm not the person who called Susan Boyle,
"A beautiful woman." I can tell you this though, women treat me far differently than they did when I was fat.

> It truly is in the eye of the beholder.
>
Within a standard deviation or two of the mean, it's more subjective, but
Susan Boyle is an outlier. Don't think I treat folks worse if I find them as
physically unappealing as I do Ms. Boyle. I don't. What Jeanne wrote was just
dumb.
>
> Cheri

--Bryan sex+

On Monday, November 18, 2013 4:50:36 PM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Crossposted into the usual troll nests. It was mildly interesting that
>
> > someone would try to make a thread on something supposedly reported to a
>
> > satirical paper. Now we have someone getting defensive about Susan
>
> > Boyle??? Come on. She fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on
>
> > the way down. That was part of her charm, that she could be so
>
> > unfortunate looking and sing like an angel.
>
>
>
> I don't think she's ugly at all. She has a very pleasant face IMO.
>
You're hetero, correct? I think that the overwhelming majority of
gynephiles--male or female--would disagree with you.
>
> Cheri

--Bryan sex+