Quote:
Originally posted by dtb
No, no. My very (admittedly esoteric) point is that if you MUST divide someone into either "good looking" or "ugly" I think most people would make the cut if they are inoffensive. I take it that you place the vast "middle ground" of people who are neither ugly nor especially attractive in the ugly camp. I would not.
So we two reasonable people (giving you the benefit of the doubt here) disagree (can you believe it?!? What are the chances?). No big whoop.
|
You can whoop it up all you like. But I guess the problem lies in your inability to properly classify.
I would say you shouldn't use "good looking" and "ugly" because I won't put someone in the good looking category if they aren't (hold your breath) good looking. I think you think that way of ugly people. But it's no surprise that you're nicer than I (hmmm. That sounds right, but I still want to say "nicer than me"). You need a third category.
It's gotta be "attractive" vs. "unattractive" or maybe "not attractive." I don't think we're really arguing here, but either you're attractive or you aren't. And if you look at it that way, I doubt your numbers would be the same.
TM
Threaded Mode