New Fashion Board 10-3-2003 - 11-7-2003

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
is nice and all that, let me swerve a bit and add the following:


Watched the the Brian DePalma flick Femme Fatale over the weekend, and let me say that Rebecca Romijn-Stamos - despite her questionable taste in men - is like the hottest thing around, and she has just shot up my list with a bullet


On an unrelated note, did anyone have any idea that Catherine Bell of JAG was such a piece of ass? Look at the size of those cans?

How John Stamos continues to hold onto her is utterly baffling. He must be hung like a pilot whale...

As to the Jag chick's cans... they're a size too big. Unrealistic. They probably look like shit unclothed. Otherwise, her body is fucking spectacular.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I'll take Brooke Burns (Bruce Willis' new GF) over Rebecca:

You boys are getting no work done today.

[tmdiva]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here's some teeth

When you guys talk about her eyes being odd, you mean how they're not even with each other, right? She has the most lopsided skewed face of any celebrity I can think of. My face is lopsided, but at least my eyes make a straight line.

tm

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
This is actually worse than posting late at night or on the weekend from home.

TM

No kidding. I was in the car and I thought "I wonder what ahppened with Leagl and that girl she met..." and then I thought "I can't believe I'm thinking about this...."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by tmdiva


When you guys talk about her eyes being odd, you mean how they're not even with each other, right? She has the most lopsided skewed face of any celebrity I can think of. My face is lopsided, but at least my eyes make a straight line.

tm

I do believe the young lady is medicated in this photo. I wouldn't put too much analysis into her eyes. I mean, they're are also oddly red.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


I do believe the young lady is medicated in this photo. I wouldn't put too much analysis into her eyes. I mean, they're are also oddly red.

Uh, it's pretty common knowledge that one eye is higher than the other. I don't necessarily think that makes her unattractive, just unusual.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
I have always found Shannon Dougherty to be really unattractive. How did her pale ass get cast on 90210? She give me hives just thinking about her.

I agree about Shannen... she's not hot. Never has been. She would not turn my head in a bar/club. She's about three drinks...

That said, who were all the other hotties on 90210? The blonde was a low rent Heather Locklear (who's a low rent Farrah), we've been over Tori already... what other girls were there? That one chick who had the really bad haircut does not count as a girl. Until Tiffany Amber Theissen, who's pretty attractive, but hardly superstar hot, got on the show, there weren't really any hotties. And even the guys were ugly... Dylan went bald in sophomore year, the blonde guy with the curly hair looked like an overweight Peter Frampton and Jason Preistely's head was large enough that he could be mistaken for hydrocephalic...

I don't know how that show got so popular...

[ABBAKiss]

Can we please stop posting that picture of Shannen? The STUFF pictures you can continue posting as desired.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You boys are getting no work done today.

As my people would say, "Mah nish-ta-na ha-lei-lah ha-zeh . . ."

aV

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by dc_chef
she's the Jill Hennessy of JAG -- who knew?

Speaking of, who's hotter? Jill?:



or

Angie?:



I'll take Angie everyday and twice on...er...everyday.

TM

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Speaking of, who's hotter? Jill?:

or

Angie?:

I'll take Angie everyday and twice on...er...everyday.

TM

Angie. No contest.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by baltassoc
My understanding (although I am willing to be corrected - it's been over a decade since I really studied this seriously) is that in Northern Europe ca. 800 this is an either/or proposition, not a both/and. Together they make up the system. The injured party/party's family only has a right to violence if the weregeld was not paid.

As a general statement, yes, it was supposed to be an either or proposition, at the option of the injured party's family (not the perp). Theoretically, if you took vengance you would owe weregild to the perp's family. But, in reality, you could claim your weregild and then kill the perp, with the result that you would just owe the weregild back - so it was effectively a wash. As you might expect, it was a little more complicated than that. Salic law is interesting as a codification, but it provides a huge oversimplification over what was actually practiced.

You usually couldn't accept weregild at all for killing by stealth (most murders - if you didn't immediately upon killing someone go and find witnesses and admit it, it was killing by stealth). No weregild or vengance was obtainable in cases of self defense, defense of one's overlord or vassals (covering just about all warfare) or defense of one's home.

Weregild was also usually owed by the perp's whole family, not just the perp. It was usually several years' income for an entire clan (and therefore could almost never actually be paid, or could be paid only by forfeiting the entire extended family's property). The family could renounce the perp and get out of the obligation, but they then lost the right to extract weregild or vengance if the perp were murdered, basically declaring open season on the perp.

Interestingly, as well as commanding the largest weregild, women were usually ultimately responsible for winning vengance. Also interestingly, the celts had something similar to weregild, but it applied only to petty crime. Major crimes were all punishable by death.

And there's really a third option, servitude; the violence only come in where the weregeld can't or won't be paid.

This was actually not common. Most germanic vengance rules didn't permit this for serious crimes, although, if weregild were demanded, it often reduced the entire family of the perp to utter destitution in fact. Slavery wasn't what we usually think of as slavery among the germans - slaves could own property and have (free) families. Besides, it is, among sensible people, not considered wise to accept a person who has already demonstrated murderous hatred towards your family into you service.

[dc_chef]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Speaking of, who's hotter? Jill?:



or

Angie?:



I'll take Angie everyday and twice on...er...everyday.

TM

For some reason, the Jill picture wasn't popping up. But I'd take Jill any day. Angie has a fucked up eye, and that distracts me every time:



Plus, Angie is so skinny that she has the Debra Messing problem -- too many ribs and too much sternum showing when wearing a low cut dress.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Angie. No contest.

Jill


But I may be subconciously making my decision based on two things: (1) Angie's SO choice. Sehorn is/has been the most overrated football player in the past 5 years; (2) Angie has that annoying Demi Moore voice thing, which I can't stand. It's sexy on some girls, but not her (and surely not Demi).

And I also prefer curly/wavy hair over straight hair.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I'll take Brooke Burns (Bruce Willis' new GF) over Rebecca:

I see your Brooke Burns and raise you a Brooke Burke.



TM