Beauty

[KateChopin]

On 5/3/2014 KateChopin said:

Oh, was it the one about the TSV? Well, I guess they were trying to sell it and...lol. I didn't read the whole thing. I hope it didn't get mean. Just saying a product is not a good look on someone usually is not poofed.

I am never sorry to see a mean thread go "poof"! I don't think it is mean to talk negatively about a product or presentation, but it IS mean to talk about a host's appearance in a vicious manner and that does happen here. It is just bullying under the guise of expressing an opinion. I don't mean things like, "WOW, that (product, piece of clothing) is not attractive on ___. I mean things like "OMG, LALA's head is HUGE! She gained so much weight---she looks like an elephant in that! Q should fire her! Her hair looks disgusting!" and so on. It's really about the wording---and their intent.

There are posters here that comment about a certain host each and every day---it says more about them than her, for sure.

OH! EDITED TO SAY that the thread about the tanner that I am talking about is still there---just down a page.

[stevieb]

It's more common than it used to be, when threads of that ilk just went poof... Now, it seems, when a thread has upset our esteemed... moderators, for whatever reason, but isn't glaringly 'poof-able' it's merely shut down. Then, a few days later, these threads typically disappear altogether...

[shoekitty]

On 5/2/2014 Remee said:

Yeah, freedom of speech isn't allowed here. Especially if you talk negatively about the appearance of a host, even if you are speaking the truth.

Our amendments don't apply here. You can only say and do what the webmaster's approve. Real fair isn't it?

That is a load of doo doo. Personally. I would tthink why it is necessary to gang up on a host and make cruel, disparaging remarks about her looks for sport. Geesh! And what is the TRUTH about someone's looks? Whose truth? One persons idea of beauty is not anothers. That is why the human species is unique. JMHO.

[suzyQ3]

On 5/3/2014 shoekitty said:

On 5/2/2014 Remee said:

Yeah, freedom of speech isn't allowed here. Especially if you talk negatively about the appearance of a host, even if you are speaking the truth.

Our amendments don't apply here. You can only say and do what the webmaster's approve. Real fair isn't it?

That is a load of doo doo. Personally. I would tthink why it is necessary to gang up on a host and make cruel, disparaging remarks about her looks for sport. Geesh! And what is the TRUTH about someone's looks? Whose truth? One persons idea of beauty is not anothers. That is why the human species is unique. JMHO.

ITA. And as azterry! said, this isn't the public square; it's a privately owned website, and we are guests here.

I can only imagine how this fact must grate on some who seem to thrive on taking anonymous potshots at just about everything and everybody.

[HappyDaze]

On 5/3/2014 shoekitty said:

On 5/2/2014 Remee said:

Yeah, freedom of speech isn't allowed here. Especially if you talk negatively about the appearance of a host, even if you are speaking the truth.

Our amendments don't apply here. You can only say and do what the webmaster's approve. Real fair isn't it?

That is a load of doo doo. Personally. I would tthink why it is necessary to gang up on a host and make cruel, disparaging remarks about her looks for sport. Geesh! And what is the TRUTH about someone's looks? Whose truth? One persons idea of beauty is not anothers. That is why the human species is unique. JMHO.

[Kjelle]

On 5/2/2014 KateChopin said:

Happens every once in awhile. Godfreako's sneak peaks (I think she works for the Q) are often closed down---possibly by her after she gives us a hint of something we have inquired about.

I was speculating that she worked for a vendor for QVC, maybe a printer or a cleaner in the building, and was leaking what she was seeing. Still a mystery.

[Porcelain]

The original thread started out a bit wenchy in my opinion, because the host looked so starkly different than usual. People couldn't figure out what was wrong.

But once they realized the issue was too heavily applied tanner and not crazy face shots, the comments moderated and focused on the misapplication of the product. Which was genuinely cringe-inducingly funny.

It looked like exactly what you would not want to happen if you applied a tanner for the first time and had to kick off a multimillion dollar product deal launch--for the tanner. And the rep looked like she'd been working on a car or cleaning a chimney. With greenish soot patches. They were definitely troupers to get through the whole thing.