Carole Franizzi

Suspiria Finucane wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: (bff does stand for beyatchy female foes, doesn't it?) Love it! ...and it just might :matte-motes-evil: Carole Franizzi wrote: Glad to see you too. Though probably not as glad as someone else I can think of who, without your never-give-in attitude would have had oodles of hours less entertainment in these forums. But then, let's be honest - you're kinda pleased to see him back too. 'Fess up. On ya go. I'll tickle you till you admit it! Frankly, I think the pair of you should get SLhitched. I could make a fortune selling tickets for your couples therapy sessions. It is interesting how one character revolves around another, revolves around another, revolves around another etc. And yes, I'll admit bantering with the original was entertaining. What intrigues me however; is the actual hatred some people show on this forum. You would think 2 years away from someone would soften the hate but it hasn't. I'm willing to bet he was entertained too. Verbal ping-pong and all that. I would never have written any of my WoT's if others hadn't responded. And I get more dismayed by agreement - which effectively ends the debate - than disagreement which extends it. Without an 'adversary', many aspects of 'forumism' are pointless. Re: hatred. Hell, I don't hate anyone in RL, go figger in SL! I've never been too convinced about SLurve - the act of loving a faceless stranger known through their avatar and choice, crafted snippets of 'information' which can't be verified - and I'm equally unconvinced about hating a faceless stranger. What is there to hate? When you don't even know a person, how can you hate them? Re: your jump-suit. Ah! Gotcha. Yep, that has 'Carole' written all over it....

Maddy wrote:I didn't say, nor mean to imply that shadenfreude was hypothetical and I do expect it's been around a long time. I'm theorizing that if a person is perceived to be a "shadenfreudist", that might affect the dynamics of their social circle. Me: Sorry, but I took your ‘if’ and ‘might’ as the hypothetical voice. Anyway, yes, I think it’s safe to bet that a ‘hardcore schadenfreudist’ who openly reacts with glee over his/her friends’ misadventures wouldn’t have too many Christmas card on their mantelpiece. It could also be argued that in today’s society a moderate dose of real or apparent schadenfreud would actually get you lots of friends. Sharing a love of gutter press with the masses does not elevate your schadenfreude to the level of "apparent". You're just down here in the background noise with the rest of us. Not at all sure what you mean by this statement. It sounds like I claimed the superiority of gutter press readers over background noise people. I’m pretty sure I didn’t. But even at the macro level, are you sure that if it could be done, a direct survey or perhaps meta-analysis of proclivity towards schadenfreude along with general well being would show no correlation? No, I’m convinced it would show a correlation. Actually, I think you’ll find it’s been done many times over, though measuring “general well-being” isn’t usually the aim of psychological research. It’s a bit too vague. Replace “general well being” with any one of its components and I think you’ll find a lot of literature out there. We do such soft studies all the time, and we often argue about the results, but they can be thought provoking. And now let's mix the macro and the micro. I prefer mine shaken, please. And with an olive. Actually, make that two olives. Google wouldn't need proof of causality to target schadenfreudists if they had correlation with other behaviors they could exploit for gain. I could be persuaded that the profit-driven business Google isn’t overly curious about exactly which states of anxiety lie behind their clients’ need to seek out the juicy details of a Hollywood divorce. Supplying Google with data to make their profits even higher would be on awfully good reason not to spend one’s academic life on such research, should this be one’s field. You've already described some examples of schadenfreudic public content. If you can identify it, so can Google. Although we may not be highly aware of our schadenfreude (or any number of human behaviors), detecting it in an individual seems well within the wheelhouse of "big data". Yep. Modern society evolved a hell of a lot faster than our genes. How can we be sure that schadenfreude has the same benefit now as it did 50,000 years ago? I don’t think we can ever be 100% sure of anything ‘psychological’ which happened 50,000 years ago in order to make that comparison you’re asking about. However, the mere persistence of any self-defence mechanism is, I’m guessing, proof enough that human psyches are still in need of them. You know, there’s a lot of stuff in this world that can’t be abolished just because some people feel they’re ‘unhealthy’ or not useful. I for one would be delighted to see misogyny abolished. Most people would vote for ‘banning’ depression, anxiety, racism…but it just doesn’t work that way. In ancient times, hearing a twig snap in the woods and thinking it was a predator was worth being wrong 99 out of 100 times because the one time you were right, the tiger didn't eat you. In modern times, not accepting a lift from a strange man just in case he’s a sex-predator is worth being wrong 99 times out of 100, because the one time in 100 that you turn out to be right, the consequences of being trapped in a car parked down a dark country lane with a knife at your throat are well worth all those long walks home, under the rain, along brightly lit, crowded, safe streets. You really think we’ve evolved out of our need for self-defence mechanisms? That same causal search mechanism is now credited with belief in fairies, ghosts, and shamans who preach the refusal of proven effective medicines and procedures. What same causal search mechanism? Weren’t we talking about protective mechanisms? What are causal search mechanisms anyway? And ghosts? Fairies? You really lost me here. Nobody would advocate for the elimination of this subconscious mechanism… Just as well. They’d be wasting their time. On the other hand, I firmly believe my campaign to make emotional detachment illegal will be very successful. …but many call for us to understand that it's error prone and strive to reduce its negative impact on us individually and collectively. Who are these ‘many’ calling for the acknowledgement that psychological self-defence mechanisms have outgrown their purpose? If a mechanism is natural and instinctive, does that automatically make it healthy? Curling up into a ball to protect the vulnerable abdominal area when attacked is another natural defence mechanism. It’s neither healthy nor unhealthy. It’s necessary. Have you contradicted yourself by saying that schadenfreude is a process which plays a part in preserving our psychological well-being, but is not a cause? If it causes nothing to happen, then it plays no part. No, I don’t think I have. Schadenfreude derives from a certain state of mind – I think I called it a barometer or something like that, because it reveals information about that state of mind. However, it occurs primarily to serve a self-defending purpose – the bolstering of the self-esteem, the attenuation of anxiety, etc. It also has its place in a chain of causal events, of course – as we said, ‘hardcore schadenfreude’ would negatively impact social relationships. In this secondary phase, it most definitely assumes the role of cause, though not the root one of the chain of cause-effect events. The strength of this mechanism may be correlated to self-esteem, and it may have been the effect of evolution, but it if it's playing a part in preserving psychological well-being, then it is a cause. Is emotional detachment in an adult, resulting from having a cold, unloving parent, a cause or an effect? Surely it’s the effect of the original trauma, and the subsequent cause of difficulty to form loving adult relationships? It’s first an effect, then a cause, however, it’s not the cause of the original trauma (see above). The National Institutes of Health are funding research into the health effects of meditation. We already know that certain kinds of meditation affect dopamine production and blood flow in specific brain regious. We know we can teach patients to think in ways that reduce their need for pain medications. Functional MRI is helping locate specific regions of the brain which are responsible for specific kinds of cognition and thinking, and to better understand neurotransmitter production and modulation. You just know someone will eventually do schadenfreude tests on people with their heads stuck in MRI machines. They've already done them. (see link below) Maddy ETA-ed: “While those "power of positive thinking" books might be mostly bunk, do we know they're all bunk?” Carole: They’re not bunk. They have exactly the same result as schadenfreude. Maddy: They do? Exactly? How do you know? Wouldn't all the books be interchangeable then? I think there's more complexity here than you're acknowledging. All those neurochemists and pyschologists will want something to do, Carole! They work when the person is ripe for being talked round. Be it a book they actively go out and purchase, a pal, a loving mother, a guru, themselves beyatchily enjoying the misfortunes of someone they dislike or resent, or even a string of clichéd, over-simplified, over-generalised, de-contextualised ‘philosophical’ gems collected from web sites and pasted on their Facebook page, when a person is of a frame of mind to jolly themselves along /let themselves be jollied along and be convinced that they’re doing good it’s because that’s exactly what they need in that moment of their lives, and then anything can potentially act as a supplier of mantras. And that’s good and healthy and one of the methods we humans use to survive the hardships of life. And, contrarily, if you’re not ‘ripe’, nothing in the world will alter self-perception. Proof? Let’s use extreme, negative examples of the power of persuasion and self-persuasion: consider cults which convince dozens of people to commit suicide simultaneously, and how about anorexia? - distorted body perception which cannot be altered even by loving family members and specialised health professionals, even when the sufferer is literally starving to death. Convincing someone that men being from Mars is the reason why their marriage didn’t work out is a much less ambitious task in comparison. They sell because they ‘work’, Maddy. Exactly how they work is complicated, though… All those psychologists are already familiar with the notion of the immense power of persuasion and self-persuasion without me introducing the concept to them, Maddy. And, yes, of course it’s much more complicated than this, but this is a forum for a VR after all. Could implying that, unlike your friends, you don't litter Facebook with self comforting statements, be a self comforting statement? Don't we all comfort ourselves, Carole? I know I just did by stating that I'm not on Facebook. ;-) I have no problem with stating openly that I do not subscribe to the Meme School of Self Help. It could be argued that this is more an act of patronising boasting though, than self-comforting. However, I have absolutely nothing against self-comforting. We couldn’t survive without it. None of us. Me included. It’s just that my form of self-comforting is of a much more sophisticated nature. Now, if you’ll excuse me, it’s nearly bed-time and I need to go and look for my pacifier. Here’s some bedtime reading for you: http://www.goallab.nl/publications/documents/2011_Emotion_Van%20Dijk%20et%20al.pdf http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/01/26/0956797610397667.abstract

Awe….While I am delighted to see the common sense you are bringing to this thread, Carole, I am afraid I have to disagree with you …. Me: Good. You know how I like a bit of a debate. Well, no you don’t know that. How could you? You don’t know me. Erm. Sorry. Got confused there. Awe….schadenfreude would not exist without empathy; Me: You’re saying that schadenfreudish (what the hell is the adjective of that word??) reactions pass first through empathy? First you share in the pain, then you transform your acquired pain into enjoyment? So you’re saying that basically schadenfreude is mental self-pleasuring for masochists? Awe…you HAVE to comprehend the feelings of another person before you can take pleasure in their discomfiture. AND . . Even Simon Baron-Cohen, who should know better, confuses empathy with sympathy. Me: Well, that depends on what you mean by ‘comprehend’. Recognise and label? The cat is sad. The bird is happy. The dog is angry. Frown, smile, grimace. I see you frown. I know you are what’s termed as ‘sad’. But am I bovvered? Not necessarily. Now, I’m thinking about a grizzly bear rearing up in front of you, claws out, ready to tear your head off. Does he know you’re poo-scared? Yep. Is he sympathetic? Nope. Does he share your emotional state? Nope again. Is he an example of schadenfreude? Doubt it. Just wanting his lunch, more like it. Yeah, yeah, I know bears are animals and we need human examples – well, apparently serial killers all exhibit total emotional detachment from their victims, to the point that the victim is an object, not a fellow being capable of arousing empathy or sympathy. In fact, the victim’s fear is what gives these creatures their fun. Are they sharing the fear? Nah. They can recognise it, but there ain’t a drop of empathy or sympathy in sight. Re: sympathy Vs empathy - criminal psychologists seem mostly to refer to lack of empathy, not lack of sympathy, when they discuss pathological personalities, however I may be wrong. Anyway, if Borat makes the same error as me, I’m in good company. My feeling is that, if a person truly feels empathy for another’s suffering, they will never ever be capable of finding pleasure in it, for they would be getting kicks from what is now, in part, their own pain. If they are feeling pleasure over a person’s suffering, then no way in hell did they feel anything close to empathy beforehand. They might think they did, of course, but if a person is emotionally damaged, they’re not in a great position to know what normal emotional processes actually feel like. Having said that, I reckon we’re all capable of shutting off empathetic and sympathetic responses when our own well-being takes priority. You just wouldn’t want that to be happening to you all the time.

Maddy wrote: “If that shadenfreude is apparent, might the social dynamics punish the holder?” I doubt it. You talk about it as if it is a hypothetical phenomenon, rather than one which actually exists, and, I’m guessing, has always existed. Much of the world’s gutter press is based on the minor and major downfalls of stars, starlettes, politicians and sportspeople. Prince William is losing his hair. Antonio Banderas is looking old. His wife was mistaken for a trout at an angling competition and got a fish hook through her swollen lip. President XYZ has a secret love child… And what about our day-to-day conversations? What percentage of them are hand-rubbing gossip? Let’s be honest… Societies don’t punish all that. They will actually encourage it. If a powerful/rich/leading nation takes a tumble, you’ll see schadenfreude on an institutionalised scale in other countries, including ‘friendly’ ones. Maddy wrote: “But I don't think I'd be surprised to discover that even when only known internally, that schadenfreude has an effect on health. What if it's discovered that people who engage in it frequently live longer than those who don't? I don't expect we'll see that study soon, and it'll be surrounded by critique, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that our natures affect our health.” Schadenfreude isn’t a bad habit like ciggy smoking. It’s a natural, instinctive, process which plays a part in preserving our psychological well-being. The more it’s present, the more the ‘holder’ evidently needs such a mechanism to deal with their own self-esteem issues. The healthier the self-esteem, I reckon, the fewer the episodes, internally and externally, manifested. But no-one will ever be totally schadenfreude-free. Maybe Mother Theresa. Or maybe not. It’s something we cannot know. However, as I said before, my belief is that it’s an effect, not a cause. Maddy ETA-ed: “While those "power of positive thinking" books might be mostly bunk, do we know they're all bunk?” They’re not bunk. They have exactly the same result as schadenfreude. Instead of using specific others and their mishaps to make positive comparisons about ourselves – I’m not losing my hair, I still look young for my age, I don’t get mistaken for a trout – we let an author talk us into believing how great we are through sweeping generalisations. I don’t know about you, but I have a number of friends who litter Facebook with self-comforting little sayings on a regular basis: I believe that reality is a sublime comedy staged for my education & amusement and that there is a benevolent conspiracy to liberate me from my ignorance and help transform me into the unique masterpiece I was born to be. (Yeah, right) Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune.(Popular as a screen-saver among high-school drop-outs still living on unemployment cheques at the age of 35) Be thankful for your limitations, because they give you opportunities for improvement.(So, if you were born into poverty, in a war zone, and spent your childhood in a refugee camp trying to avoid dying of hunger, getting raped or murdered, catching typhoid or malaria, you should be really, really grateful?) The greatest discovery of all time is that a person can change his future by merely changing his attitude(Tell that to the kid in the refugee camp.) . There are no menial jobs, only menial attitudes(This from a very wealthy multiple degree holder, one of which a Ph.D, one of which from Harvard Law School, who held menial posts under Regan and Bush, one of which Secretary of Education…) People too weak to follow their own ambitions will always find a way to discourage yours(No, really, I think it’s a great idea to hand in your notice, sell the house, take the kids out of school, buy a boat and sail round the world till the money runs out. You should be ok for a couple of years, right? Hey, by that time your daughters will be over 18 and your wife will only be 39 – all three of them will surely get jobs in that nice little club for adult male entertainment down in downtown Shanghai.) The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.(Said by Einstein. And he could get away with it. He actually was a genius. Slapped over FB pages by people who spell it “genious”…slightly more indigestible.) I wouldn’t have to manage my anger if people would learn to manage their stupidity.(No doubt t-shirts with this one are high sellers amongst wife-beaters)

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: Didn't really understand what you meant in the bolded sentence but here's my two-yens worth anyway. Schadenfreude - neither healthy nor unhealthy. Just natural, normal, and very, very human. I'm in approximate agreement, I think (this isn't something I've thought about much). But as our social evolution is moving faster than our genetic evolution, I wouldn't be surprised if we discover that schadenfreude, as well as being natural, does affect overall health of an individual and the social group, though perhaps in opposite ways. I'll be fascinated by the experiments that attempt to tease this all apart. It's very interesting to see how researchers attempt to isolate the things they're looking for. In reply to the bolded bit. If I'm to be coherent, I have to say I would be surprised. If I'm going to stick to what I said before then schadenfreude is only a symptom and not a cause. Just as a fever is a sign of the body fighting infection, a schadenfreudian (??) reaction is, I suspect, only a symptom of the schadenfreudic (???) person's debilitated ego reacting. Sure, if everyone gloated all the time at everyone else's misfortune, it would be a dreadful sign of the times, however, the problem wouldn't be the schadenfreudianism (??????) per se, but the underlying society-wide cause of the death of all empathy.

Suspiria Finucane wrote: Great to see you again Carole! :matte-motes-evil-invert: Despite our differences in the past, I've always appreciated your individualism. PS I'd be happy to send you a copy of the hippie get up :matte-motes-wink: Well, hello there, Suspiria. Us? Differences? When?? I'll not have that! Why, we've always been bff's, haven't we? (bff does stand for beyatchy female foes, doesn't it?) (If there was a little winking devil smiley, I'd insert it here. Just imagine it.) Glad to see you too. Though probably not as glad as someone else I can think of who, without your never-give-in attitude would have had oodles of hours less entertainment in these forums. But then, let's be honest - you're kinda pleased to see him back too. 'Fess up. On ya go. I'll tickle you till you admit it! Frankly, I think the pair of you should get SLhitched. I could make a fortune selling tickets for your couples therapy sessions. Edited to add this PS - don't get the hippy-thingy reference. Remind/illuminate me.

Awe Thor wrote: Suspiria Finucane wrote: Some educated readers Where are you going to find them around here? Awe . . . apart from Carole and Dresden, of course, and they know the score. Awe...shucks.

Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: We all make mistakes, it's what makes us human. Where does this piece of nonsense come from? Are you seriously suggesting that all the other species on planet earth get everything exactly right all the time? Awe . . . can't wait for the next bit of apple pie and motherhood kitsch cliche with no reasoned basis. Mm? You called?

Tex Monday wrote: Awe Thor wrote: Tex Monday wrote that the "researcher" said: " We know that it's very good to feel empathy and sympathy for people," Do we? Says who? Professional mourners? Charity workers? Tex Monday wrote that the "researcher" said: Our society thrives on compassion and empathy." Again, says who? Not Darwin. Those further down the food chain might hope for some beneficence from those who are better equipped to survive and thrive, but the latter have usually got that way by identifying and oppressing the weak. Tex - thanks for the reference, which highlights the worst aspects of do-gooding social science: do a bit of an experiment, then conclude in line with your unsubstantiated prejudices. Awe . . . still waits for evidence that schadenfreude is mentally unhealthy. You asked for evidence that schadenfreude is (or can be) mentally unhealthy. The evidence is there. It can be unhealthy if people (all people who wish to have) empathy and sympathy towards their fellow humans. If you don't feel that this applies to you, then by all mean please continue to have your healthy dose of schadenfreude. I do applaud after a waitress drops a tray of glasses...but then I feel bad that she's got to clean it all up afterwards. Didn't really understand what you meant in the bolded sentence but here's my two-yens worth anyway. Schadenfreude - neither healthy nor unhealthy. Just natural, normal, and very, very human. We watch horror films to get kicks from the fact it’s not us about to get a meat cleaver in the skull. We gossip discuss in detail about what exactly Mr Brown across the road was wearing when his wife walked in on him and the maid doing a spot of role-reversal because we’re deeply comforted that our own secret lives haven’t been announced to the four winds. Or that it was our colleague, and not us, who was the one to slip on those lethal high-gloss granite stairs and crash-land at the feet of the Big Boss. In other words – it’s in part relief that our own vulnerability – physical, social, mental – was not the one being violated. Also, I think, if the cleaveree, the feather-dusteree and the slippy-stairee are all people who get up our noses, seem too big for their boots, are too pretty, too successful, too lucky, too darned happy – then our own self-esteem gets a little boost, as it might appear for a moment that fate has stepped in to even up things a tad. So, to sum up, I shouldn’t think it either damages or benefits society – its existence is merely a barometer for the state of our own self-perception. Don’t ask for proof or links or whatnot – this is just my gut-originating opinion. No, wait – that was the green peppers I had for lunch. Sorry about that.

Oh, stop trying to steal my thunder, mister. That post was deffo about me and not you. "Some of us can actually understand what we read instead of creating definitions based on illiteracy." Yep, that’s me – I never use illiteracy-based dictionaries. They tend to get all the meanings wrong. "…and strive for multilingual excellence while others choose to languish in cultural mediocrity." Oui, oui. C’est toujour moi. In fact, I’m tempted to say that excellence multinguistique et moi are pretty much comme le pan et le burre. Come il pane e il burro. Como el breado y el burro. See? "Some of us don’t post ennui based torpor replies." Heck, I wouldn’t know what an ennui-based torpor reply was - how could I post one? "Some of us creatively think for themselves and don’t have to replicate another’s style." Oh, this is so me she’s talking about! I mean – who, apart from me, looks like this on SL? Seriously, who? "Some of us don’t need to use alts because our main was permabanned." And I’m proud to say I’ve never been banned. Self-exiled, yes. Driven away in desperation, boredom, shock, horror – even ennui, yes. But banned – perma or tempo - nope.

I gotta say, Rachael, I see a certain irony in people exhorting you to trust their take on the dilemma in discussion, while deriding you for apparently having trusted your friend's version of the facts.... Anyhoo - my vote for most helpful answer goes to Canoro.

Smashing to see you too. Between you and me, I'm not convinced I understood the threads myself. 'Specially the gone-one - twas more off track than that film with Keanu Reeves and a runaway train. Or was it a bus? Personally I prefer him in Matrix. I'm not a fan of Sandra Bullock though. Sorta expressionless, in my opinion. I'm thinking she's had 'work' done. Still, not as bad as some. I'd never get work done. Never looks right. Mind you, they'd not know where to start on me... Anyway, like I was saying, can't stand folk who refuse to stay on-topic.

Ah, the delicious surrealism of SL! :smileyvery-happy:

Bree Giffen wrote: Well first off, does SL even have a sexualized culture that is relevant? I think so. SL does have a much larger degree of sexuality than most other virtual worlds (including game worlds). I'd agree to the first question because sexualized things always objectify people. It's practically the definition of sexualization which for me is to emphasize the sexual aspects of a person and minimize all other aspects of their humanity. So yes, I think SL's sexual culture objectifies men and women. I'd say the focus on one particular gender is irrelevant. So if we believe the line of thinking introduced in the first question, that a sexualized culture causes people to objectify other people, then the second question is asking if the sexualized culture also makes people want to be objectified by others. I think so. We see it all the time in the real world. Making yourself a sex object is one of many ways to increase your attractiveness to the opposite or same sex. General cleanliness is another way and so is memorizing poetry. So I'd agree to the second question because a sexualized culture always encourages people to objectify themselves as opposed to a non-sexualized culture which encourages people to make themselves attractive to other people through making themselves a better person. I think by including 'sexualized culture of SL' you are begging the question. I know this is based on the other thread and that poster is the one that made the mistake. This ^^^ All of it. Totally. Could not agree more. Nobody's avatar gets sexually objectified in SL unless their operator, male or female, makes the free choice to create a sex-object avatar - male or female - and voluntarily indulge in 'objectification activities'. Everybody could, if they so wished, make totally asexual avatars and plonk them down on art sims. However, in a realm of anonymity, where RL values and judgements are suspended, going the short-cut route of the sex-bomb-object to attract attention, to obtain peer approval, admiration and feel 'visible', is actually fairly logical. Let's not forget about the natural human desire to fit in - I could tell you a thing or two about opting not to fit into a world made of 'physically perfect' late teens and twenty-somethings. And in fact I had (have still, I suppose) alts which fit the usual standard when swimming against the current became tiresome.

Yep. Saw it. Will be in touch soon. Thanks, Celestiall.

I read your post the other evening but didn't have time to answer. Then when I popped in last night, I got distracted by the objectification thread. Have to tell you - couldn't stop giggling at the idea of you with a whole house stuck on your head. Kudos to the Gorean chappy's retort too. Dead funny.

Locke Nider wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Does the sexualized culture of SL objectify men? Does it encourage men to objectify themselves? I not completely sure, but judging by your forum posts, I can come to the conclusions that men of your "type" seem to objectify themselves a lot. Risky business drawing conclusions here in SL about "types". Not only the gender of another avie operator cannot be definitively established but neither can sexual orientation. I myself have operated what appeared to be gay male avatar and I'm a straight female in RL. You're more than welcome to not believe me - actually, to be coherent, I should probably encourage you not to believe me. But you see how easy it could be to get led waaaay off track by SL appearances? Having said that, prejudice and intolerance are often easy to detect.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Does the sexualized culture of SL objectify men? Does it encourage men to objectify themselves? Yes. And yes.

Ricky40 wrote: Just curious about what age most people make there avatars? Is the way you dress and play your avatar the same age as you in Real life or younger? Actually, my avie's older than me in RL.

I gave up even trying. I'd just hurl my avie downstairs or off the landing. Quicker, easier and total painless, even for elderly ladies.

An alpine chalet? You mean an entire house? Stuck on your head? Ok...that's bad. Really bad. Hopefully it was just the box. That's what happened to me when I bought my first skin. Just could not figure out how to wear the ruddy thing without having this massive box stuck to my hand. And of course it took ages to work out how to detach it. Only to re-attach it again. And again. And again. Unbelieveable as it may seem, I was too shy to ask for help... The skin itself, which, at the time, I thought was top-notch, was a nasty cheapo overly-tanned bimbo skin. To complete the look - hexagonal knockers with angles you could cut yourself with and full-bright blonde hair. Classy.

Got your PM too. TY.

Lee!!!! Soooo happy to hear from you. I know Celestiall passed on my message. Huge hugs to you, gal.

Awe Thor wrote: I left a message on your feed profile, but reading this thread makes me realise that you won't have a clue what I am talking about. No, it's nothing to do with mesh. I'm outing my favourite-named inworld alt - since LL hasn't got around to banning it yet - especially to wish you the best with your RL activities and to recommend that you get out of this place as soon as possible. Awe ... what a sweetie! Is this whole message an anagram? Going to need several sets of Scrabble tiles to work this one out.

Well, if you ever decide to go for hawt, let me know. I've a scorchin' hot collection of support tights and girdles I could lend you. :matte-motes-big-grin-wink: