I'd say about 99 percent of the Earth's population does this (and 99.99% of Fanpoppers). Stupid. Personality and actions do NOT affect a person's physical looks whatsoever.
People are biased as hell! Physical beauty should be acknowledged and not just ignored because of actions you don't like or a bad personality. There are plenty that this applies to for me, like Elizabeth Taylor. She had a very stuck up and holier than thou personality and committed adultery SEVERAL times, even breaking up a marriage between two good friends of hers (though likely they weren't such good friends afterwards lol) and later cheated on him with Richard Burton. She had gone through five marriages before she was even 30 years old. However, I think she's absolutely GORGEOUS!
Stupid is such a strong word for one. For seconds no, it isn't, a man who hits women is 100% less physically attractive because I know how he acts.
Swami and colleagues (2010) studied the influence of personality on perceptions of physical attractiveness. They asked male participants to rate the attractiveness of photographs of various female figures (ranging from emaciated to obese). Some participant groups received positive personality information about the women in the pictures (extraverted, agreeable, conscientious, open, and stable), while others received negative personality information, or no information at all.
Results found that all groups agreed on the body shape that was "most" attractive. However, groups given positive personality information found a significantly wider range of body sizes physically attractive, compared to the control group. Groups given negative personality information found a significantly narrower range of body sizes attractive than the control group.
An earlier study by Lewandowski, Aron, and Gee (2007) supports this effect. Their study used both men and women as participants, manipulated personality trait descriptions, and utilized ratings of yearbook photos. The authors found that pictures paired with positive traits were rated as more attractive, and those paired with negative traits were rated as less attractive, when compared to controls. This effect occurred with pictures of both "attractive" and "unattractive" students. This effect also happened for both men and women participants, with women a bit more sensitive to "negative" personality information. Finally, the effect also influenced judgments of desirability as a dating partner.
Additional research found that perceived honesty affects judgments of physical attractiveness as well (Paunonen, 2006). Similarly, naturalistic studies also show that judgments of physical attractiveness are influenced by familiarity, liking, respect, talent, and effort (Kniffin & Wilson, 2004). This occurs with both men and women. Overall, personality and character information appears to have an impact on perceptions of physical attractiveness.
Basically this is perfectly natural. The brain naturally finds people who have positive traits more attractive. I can't say for certian, but much like men being attracted to women with long hair because it's a sign of health; this is probably due in part to another one of the brain's 'keep the population alive' subcounscious (sp?) processes. The brain doesn't want to get with someone who will cause it or its body harm, so if the person has negative traits the brain reveals them with less apeal.
So no, it's not stupid to take personality/action into account when voting on beauty polls because it's 1. natural and 2. actually (according to various articles including the above) proven by studies that personality is a factor when rating apparance.
I'm going to be completely honest and say that I wouldn't have gone on this long rant if you didn't call myself and people like myself stupid for doing this. And to say that "Personality and actions do NOT affect a person's physical looks whatsoever." is simply untrue.
^Tbh zan if a person completely and utterly ONLY focus on the physical aspect then they are not bias. But if they do take personality into the equation then they are. Even if that psychological viewpoint is accurate. (Which I am going to assume it has some facts to support the logic) personality doesn't affect personal beauty for me. If someone is gorgeous but has a shitty personality. I am going to say such because I can logically determine what is my own conclusion without bias and what is bias. I have seen gorgeous women that are assholes and I have seen ugly women who are extremely nice. If someone says that personality and actions affect people's perspective of physical attractiveness I guess it can be true to a point but it is definitely not the benchmark for most cases. How many of those people logically and without bias said their results? Tbh if anyone puts personal opinion when people are asking them to make a somewhat logical conclusion. That means you're bias to a degree and you can't just say someone is attractive or non-attractive without such. If someone ask you to logically discern something and you put your own emotional opinions in. That is opposite of what you really should be doing.essentially.
Tbh zan if a person completely and utterly ONLY focus on the physical aspect then they are not bias.
That I can understand; if the person bases it completely and only on personality. But if it's simply a factor than I don't see the issue. I think the people being referred to in this poll are people who have it as a factor. I definitely agree that to a degree people can be biased and those people aren't the brightest; personally I like to admit that people who are emotionally unattractive can be physically so. But I also think it's...bold to call people stupid for something like that. And then there's always the subjectivity...but that's always an issue.
^Ya it's definitely bold but look at who you're referring to. That guy constantly makes bold accusations when they may or may not be accurate. The issue is you're using emotion to discern logical opinions. That's the issue with using personality as a factor for physical beauty.
That's a fair point. However I'm still going to say no as I don't think stupid is the right word. Natural, maybe biased yes...stupid no, as I feel like to a certain degree it is how the brain is wired--to be turned off by negative personality traits. But again, bias totally has a hand.
Long story short; if the question was worded differently I'd have picked differently.
I think the people voting "No" need to read/reread KataraLover's comment. You can have a shitty personality and still be incredibly gorgeous (Ex. Elizabeth Taylor, as KataraLover stated). Miley may twerk and stick her tongue out, but I personally still find her incredibly gorgeous even if people dislike her actions.
With all due respect, I read his comment good and well. Perhaps you should read the one directly above yours. And the one considering the psychological aspects of it instead of assuming that people who voted no aren't looking at it from both sides.
In the case of Miley; some people find the tongue thing unattractive to look at. In that case her action directly affects her physical appearance.
Don't take this the wrong way; Miley is pretty but, those are not. It's not a flattering expression. And this is just my opinion. Some (so called) 'trashy' actions do make the appearance less appealing.
Likewise with twerking; let's be honest, not everyone is into the 'big ass' trend. Some people don't think twerking is physically attractive--in fact some may even find it appalling to look at.
I am very much 'do what you want if it doesn't hurt me' but I really don't think twerking is sexy in a physical sense or an emotional sense.
^With all due respect, the majority of people voting for "Yes" in this poll proves that it IS somewhat stupid to take personality and actions into account when voting on beauty polls.
And if "a man who hits women is 100% less physically attractive because I know how he acts", then it's just as logical for you to find Bellatrix Lestrange unattractive because she tortured a man (Neville's father) and killed another male (Dobby).
There are a ton of celebrities I absolutely LOATHE, yet I can still admit they're physically attractive.
And anyone can make unflattering pics like Miley. To be honest, I've seen some expressions that Helena Bonham Carter make that aren't the most attractive, even if the woman is gorgeous. Making "unflattering" faces do not affect a person's physical features. People wouldn't consider you ugly if you stuck out your tongue or made a funny face, would they?
Likewise I've stated what I hope are some logical reasons as to why it's not stupid. Honestly my main point here is that I picked no because I don't think it's stupid do I think it's biased? Yes, to a degree, but everything is biased to an extent. Do I think that negative actions should be the only factor in saying that a person is unattractive? No, but they shouldn't be excluded either.
Of course a person isn't going to view another person in the same way after watching he/she do something unflattering. That kind of response isn't stupid, it's natural; the brain is kind of wired to think this way.
To be frank I see fictional characters in a whole different regard. Bellatrix is still attractive because she isn't real and can't actually cause anyone the harm that I feel would make a person look ugly. I also never said Bella was attractive 100% of the time; this isn't exactly a pretty picture link
But again when it comes down to it Bellatrix isn't real. People like Justin Bieber (who do trashy and unflattering things) are. To be honest the actions of most fictional characters do not impact me the way the actions of a real person do.
Honestly every celebrity has his/her ups and downs. All of them have flattering images and unflattering ones. Like I said, I'm not trying to bash Cryus, she has her moments of glory. What I was trying to say is that certain actions can lead to a decline in attractiveness. The act of sticking one's tongue out kind of bunches up the face in a way that makes the person's physical features look odd--the same way certain camera angles and certain lighting does. Actions can affect physical beauty. Smoking is another good example; smoking in itself isn't attractive to myself personally--and smoking is an action that can and does mare an appearance.
Bonham Carter, Cyrus, Stewert, your average soul on the street can look really good or really bad, it isn't black and white. And because it isn't black and white I don't think it's fair to rule out unflattering actions as at least a minimal reason not like someone's looks.
^Just because you believe it's natural, doesn't mean other people do. Hannibal Lecter thinks eating people is "natural", but is it? Ugly personality does not equate to ugly physical features.
And if having a "nice" personality is what it takes for someone to look attractive, you should find Snow White from Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs attractive, which I know you don't.
Also we're comparing apples to oranges here in saying that the brain preferences = Hannibal eating people. Hannibal was a...disturbed individual. The scientists running these tests are using logic-based and humane methods to prove their reasoning.
Again, fictional characters =/= real people. I'm not angry, really I'm not. But please don't try to tell me what I should find attractive and what I shouldn't. I don't and am not going to do it to you, so please pay me the same respect.
Honestly I don't fine any of the Disney Snow White characters attractive...so...
Anyhow I feel like this debate is going to escalate so I think we may just have to agree to disagree because while I do enjoy your company I feel like we tend to butt heads a lot and I don't want this to turn into an actual fight or something.
@zanhar. Fictional characters does equal real people. On the base that fictional people are based off of real people. Second it is extremely bad to be bias in a logical debate. People will tend not to tend to doubt that you have any clout if you are bias in any degree. The finding a personality more attractive to somewhat enhance a person makes sense to a degree with some people. I am not wired like that (all the time) so saying it naturally effects me is incorrect. I am extremely indifferent and I try my best not to allow emotions cloud my judgement. For that is my nature. Bias standards will cause some people to not be reputable in some debates because of how you represented it and the fact you put some emotion to discern a logical distinction. But this can be skewed because this debate is still based on preferences. I do understand what you mean about fictional characters not equaling real people because somethings they do you wouldn't necessary find it attractive in real life but you might find it adds some depth to a plot.
@hatelarxene You are not viewing this argument logical and you have resolved to making petty assumptions and arguments. Instead of a debate you are personally attacking her and you need to chill. Although I disagree with her fundamentally on this subject. I WILL NOT have anyone bother her in any way. If you want to present an argument do so in a respectable format or not at all.
^Well, there's the pot calling the kettle black. No one's even bothering her, so I'd say you're the one who needs to chill. And define "respectable", because so far, no one here has said anything disrespectful or attacked zanhar1 personally in any way. And if I did, it wasn't my intention. Also, "petty assumptions". I can say the same thing for anyone else commenting on this poll, including you. Nothing I typed is even remotely "petty", and my "assumptions" are logical. If having a good personality is all it takes for a person to look attractive, then people should find everyone who's a good person to be physically attractive.
@blind I think you meant hatelarxene, not kataralover.
I've always kind of set them apart. I mean they're based off real people but they aren't real themselves. The fact that I know they aren't real and can't really hurt anyone kind of lightens the blow for me (if that makes sense). Don't get me wrong there are some characters that are so realistic you have to step back and go 'damn'. But with a character like Bellatrix; she's a wand-waving magic-using character that is in that essence impossible in real-life. And her insanity (if you will) is exaggerated to a point where you know it isn't really. But by all means people like her do exist. Now Umbridge is a character who is outright hateable because people like her are out there and aren't uncommon to see around. If that makes sense.
I guess you have a point there as well, as everyone is wired differently. Though I also don't think was fair to say that I was completely wrong and then compare the links I provided to cannibalism nor was it fair to call it completely invalid. and claim that I had no proof. When proof to back up what I thought was logical was right up there.
Not to mention I had just been told that the people who picked 'yes' actually provided proof where I didn't. Basically what I'm getting at here is that; my 'proof' and my links are just as good as the 'proof' provided by the opposition.
I feel like I may have came off as a bit 'my opinion is law' over here. I promise that's not what I'm thinking, I never said that everything I posted was the truth hence the ? after 'but it is natural'. For me the ? was meant as a 'correct me if I'm wrong' thing. So my apologies if it looked like I was trying to force people into thinking as I do.
At the end of the day I also try not to let emotions cloud my judgment, but it still happens some times. I think it's fair to say that most people are naturally biased. Some just hide it better so to speak.
@hate I'm not going to lie nor sugar coat. I did get a bit offended at the 'you should find Snow White from Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs attractive, which I know you don't.' Because I don't like being told what I like and don't like.
But it's nothing I'm gonna be butthurt over because I don't think you meant any offense. Likewise I may have offended you and if I did please speak up so it won't happen again.
The internet is so tricky to debate with because there is so much that can be misinterpreted.
@hate Uh no you need to chill. You have butthurt all written over you. And you cannot even remotely make a good argument and you try discern fallacies in other people's rebuttals badly.
@zan Eh when it comes down to alot of stuff. I don't *hide bias* alot of times it's not there for me. But exactly everyone is wired differently and trust me I know you weren't trying to be *my opinion is law* I know you decently well. I was just adding stuff to the debate. Virtually food for thought. I am leaning towards not using emotion to discern things logically and believe me sometimes emotion does cloud my judgement but not always. But I do NOT believe either way is stupid IN any degree. More like people have different ways to view the world. In short I believe you must be unbiased to be accurate in discerning things but I can see where you're coming from as well. And it makes sense. Therefore both viewpoints have some validity to a point.
@Hate pot calling the kettle black eh? Last time I recall I didn't go around insulting others for their opinions for very stupid reasons. I normally try debate with them. You don't even give the other person a chance to really explain themselves and you go crazy on them. THAT is called not being able to argue logically without emotion and therefore emotions clouded you. (LIKE it always does) Remember the Chuck Norris debate OR any debate ever dealing with you? You don't allow people to really properly explain themselves because you kinda get on them. And that is petty. I didn't make a petty assumption based on this argument. I MADE an assumption based on every argument that I have seen you make. (In case you wanna throw this "I am not stopping my emotions in this part". I am not trying to stop them.) You're extremely hypocritical about everything. And you have the nerve to say I am calling the pot and kettle black?
^Ya right. I highly doubt that. You attack people for anything. Because simply you disagree with them. I have brought alot of fact or good theories to my debates. Please tell me where I do the same thing as you. Constantly attacking people and then bothering others to help you win your side through opinion polls? LIKE with the Chuck Norris debate? You constantly do that.
^And what does the Chuck Norris thing have to do with this? At this point, you sound like one of those debaters at school who deem anyone else who can't debate to be "stupid". Also, aren't you technically personally attacking me by saying I have no logic? C'mon, now. Don't call me a hypocrite and then act like a hypocrite. And I don't mind it people disagree with me. I mind when they don't word their comments properly.
@blind To be quite honest I don't even know what my asexual butt is doing here because honestly I myself don't really even consider physical beauty when looking at people. I guess that's probably why I picked the option I did. When people ask me why I think so and so is pretty/hot I really can't answer...I just do? Typically I base my opinions on characters and people based on personality and looks are a smaller priority to me.
This right here is why fictional characters and real people are so separate for me; my personality preferences between the two are just so vastly different--if my favorite characters were real people, I'd hate all of them aside from Asami.
I guess one consistency would be that I prefer the dark hair/dark eye combo on both fictional people and real. Really in the end it all just depends.
That's good. Though I'm sure a few people who don't know me as well probably would have taken it the wrong way, so I guess it's better to make sure others know and what not.
Food for thought is never a bad thing.
To be even more honest I feel like I'm a person who thinks way more emotionally than rationally in general. I like to have a good blend of the two, but I definitely lean towards the prior.
That's exactly what I was saying; I don't think picking either 'yes' or 'no' is stupid. Hence why I picked what I did. But yeah I can totally agree that each viewpoint has it's flaws and positives.
@hate Its obvious what the Chuck Norris debate have in common with this. It's called an example. Someone had a different opinion IN both situations and you tried to steamrolled them. And oh you mind because they worded their comments improperly? There's been many times where your debate opponents did word their comments properly and you decided to group that person in with another group you despise. Without any logic for such an action. But somehow you thought it was offensive in some way and you go crazy on them. I am not really personally bashing. That would be slander. I actually believe you don't use logic much in your debates thanks to certain things I have seen from you when you argue.
@zan I see. Well that makes a whole alot more sense now that I see your viewpoint. It makes sense that you reacted in a such way now.
Sorry, kind of multi-tasking over here. I'm also gonna be going offline because my sister wants to hang out with me and such. So that's why I won't be responding right away.
@hate honestly I am done. I just highly disagree with your ethics and how you handle things. There's no other way to say it. We're obviously not going to get anywhere with this argument. I am done. Seeya
Swami and colleagues (2010) studied the influence of personality on perceptions of physical attractiveness. They asked male participants to rate the attractiveness of photographs of various female figures (ranging from emaciated to obese). Some participant groups received positive personality information about the women in the pictures (extraverted, agreeable, conscientious, open, and stable), while others received negative personality information, or no information at all.
Results found that all groups agreed on the body shape that was "most" attractive. However, groups given positive personality information found a significantly wider range of body sizes physically attractive, compared to the control group. Groups given negative personality information found a significantly narrower range of body sizes attractive than the control group.
An earlier study by Lewandowski, Aron, and Gee (2007) supports this effect. Their study used both men and women as participants, manipulated personality trait descriptions, and utilized ratings of yearbook photos. The authors found that pictures paired with positive traits were rated as more attractive, and those paired with negative traits were rated as less attractive, when compared to controls. This effect occurred with pictures of both "attractive" and "unattractive" students. This effect also happened for both men and women participants, with women a bit more sensitive to "negative" personality information. Finally, the effect also influenced judgments of desirability as a dating partner.
Additional research found that perceived honesty affects judgments of physical attractiveness as well (Paunonen, 2006). Similarly, naturalistic studies also show that judgments of physical attractiveness are influenced by familiarity, liking, respect, talent, and effort (Kniffin & Wilson, 2004). This occurs with both men and women. Overall, personality and character information appears to have an impact on perceptions of physical attractiveness.
link
Basically this is perfectly natural. The brain naturally finds people who have positive traits more attractive. I can't say for certian, but much like men being attracted to women with long hair because it's a sign of health; this is probably due in part to another one of the brain's 'keep the population alive' subcounscious (sp?) processes. The brain doesn't want to get with someone who will cause it or its body harm, so if the person has negative traits the brain reveals them with less apeal.
So no, it's not stupid to take personality/action into account when voting on beauty polls because it's 1. natural and 2. actually (according to various articles including the above) proven by studies that personality is a factor when rating apparance.
I'm going to be completely honest and say that I wouldn't have gone on this long rant if you didn't call myself and people like myself stupid for doing this. And to say that "Personality and actions do NOT affect a person's physical looks whatsoever." is simply untrue.
That I can understand; if the person bases it completely and only on personality. But if it's simply a factor than I don't see the issue. I think the people being referred to in this poll are people who have it as a factor. I definitely agree that to a degree people can be biased and those people aren't the brightest; personally I like to admit that people who are emotionally unattractive can be physically so. But I also think it's...bold to call people stupid for something like that. And then there's always the subjectivity...but that's always an issue.
Long story short; if the question was worded differently I'd have picked differently.
In the case of Miley; some people find the tongue thing unattractive to look at. In that case her action directly affects her physical appearance.
link
link
Don't take this the wrong way; Miley is pretty but, those are not. It's not a flattering expression. And this is just my opinion. Some (so called) 'trashy' actions do make the appearance less appealing.
Likewise with twerking; let's be honest, not everyone is into the 'big ass' trend. Some people don't think twerking is physically attractive--in fact some may even find it appalling to look at.
I am very much 'do what you want if it doesn't hurt me' but I really don't think twerking is sexy in a physical sense or an emotional sense.
And if "a man who hits women is 100% less physically attractive because I know how he acts", then it's just as logical for you to find Bellatrix Lestrange unattractive because she tortured a man (Neville's father) and killed another male (Dobby).
There are a ton of celebrities I absolutely LOATHE, yet I can still admit they're physically attractive.
And anyone can make unflattering pics like Miley. To be honest, I've seen some expressions that Helena Bonham Carter make that aren't the most attractive, even if the woman is gorgeous. Making "unflattering" faces do not affect a person's physical features. People wouldn't consider you ugly if you stuck out your tongue or made a funny face, would they?
Of course a person isn't going to view another person in the same way after watching he/she do something unflattering. That kind of response isn't stupid, it's natural; the brain is kind of wired to think this way.
To be frank I see fictional characters in a whole different regard. Bellatrix is still attractive because she isn't real and can't actually cause anyone the harm that I feel would make a person look ugly. I also never said Bella was attractive 100% of the time; this isn't exactly a pretty picture link
But again when it comes down to it Bellatrix isn't real. People like Justin Bieber (who do trashy and unflattering things) are. To be honest the actions of most fictional characters do not impact me the way the actions of a real person do.
Bonham Carter, Cyrus, Stewert, your average soul on the street can look really good or really bad, it isn't black and white. And because it isn't black and white I don't think it's fair to rule out unflattering actions as at least a minimal reason not like someone's looks.
And if having a "nice" personality is what it takes for someone to look attractive, you should find Snow White from Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs attractive, which I know you don't.
link
link
link
And those are just a few.
Also we're comparing apples to oranges here in saying that the brain preferences = Hannibal eating people. Hannibal was a...disturbed individual. The scientists running these tests are using logic-based and humane methods to prove their reasoning.
Again, fictional characters =/= real people. I'm not angry, really I'm not. But please don't try to tell me what I should find attractive and what I shouldn't. I don't and am not going to do it to you, so please pay me the same respect.
Honestly I don't fine any of the Disney Snow White characters attractive...so...
Anyhow I feel like this debate is going to escalate so I think we may just have to agree to disagree because while I do enjoy your company I feel like we tend to butt heads a lot and I don't want this to turn into an actual fight or something.
@hatelarxene You are not viewing this argument logical and you have resolved to making petty assumptions and arguments. Instead of a debate you are personally attacking her and you need to chill. Although I disagree with her fundamentally on this subject. I WILL NOT have anyone bother her in any way. If you want to present an argument do so in a respectable format or not at all.
I've always kind of set them apart. I mean they're based off real people but they aren't real themselves. The fact that I know they aren't real and can't really hurt anyone kind of lightens the blow for me (if that makes sense). Don't get me wrong there are some characters that are so realistic you have to step back and go 'damn'. But with a character like Bellatrix; she's a wand-waving magic-using character that is in that essence impossible in real-life. And her insanity (if you will) is exaggerated to a point where you know it isn't really. But by all means people like her do exist. Now Umbridge is a character who is outright hateable because people like her are out there and aren't uncommon to see around. If that makes sense.
I guess you have a point there as well, as everyone is wired differently. Though I also don't think was fair to say that I was completely wrong and then compare the links I provided to cannibalism nor was it fair to call it completely invalid. and claim that I had no proof. When proof to back up what I thought was logical was right up there.
Not to mention I had just been told that the people who picked 'yes' actually provided proof where I didn't. Basically what I'm getting at here is that; my 'proof' and my links are just as good as the 'proof' provided by the opposition.
I feel like I may have came off as a bit 'my opinion is law' over here. I promise that's not what I'm thinking, I never said that everything I posted was the truth hence the ? after 'but it is natural'. For me the ? was meant as a 'correct me if I'm wrong' thing. So my apologies if it looked like I was trying to force people into thinking as I do.
At the end of the day I also try not to let emotions cloud my judgment, but it still happens some times. I think it's fair to say that most people are naturally biased. Some just hide it better so to speak.
But it's nothing I'm gonna be butthurt over because I don't think you meant any offense. Likewise I may have offended you and if I did please speak up so it won't happen again.
The internet is so tricky to debate with because there is so much that can be misinterpreted.
@zan Eh when it comes down to alot of stuff. I don't *hide bias* alot of times it's not there for me. But exactly everyone is wired differently and trust me I know you weren't trying to be *my opinion is law* I know you decently well. I was just adding stuff to the debate. Virtually food for thought. I am leaning towards not using emotion to discern things logically and believe me sometimes emotion does cloud my judgement but not always. But I do NOT believe either way is stupid IN any degree. More like people have different ways to view the world. In short I believe you must be unbiased to be accurate in discerning things but I can see where you're coming from as well. And it makes sense. Therefore both viewpoints have some validity to a point.
This right here is why fictional characters and real people are so separate for me; my personality preferences between the two are just so vastly different--if my favorite characters were real people, I'd hate all of them aside from Asami.
I guess one consistency would be that I prefer the dark hair/dark eye combo on both fictional people and real. Really in the end it all just depends.
That's good. Though I'm sure a few people who don't know me as well probably would have taken it the wrong way, so I guess it's better to make sure others know and what not.
Food for thought is never a bad thing.
To be even more honest I feel like I'm a person who thinks way more emotionally than rationally in general. I like to have a good blend of the two, but I definitely lean towards the prior.
That's exactly what I was saying; I don't think picking either 'yes' or 'no' is stupid. Hence why I picked what I did. But yeah I can totally agree that each viewpoint has it's flaws and positives.
@zan I see. Well that makes a whole alot more sense now that I see your viewpoint. It makes sense that you reacted in a such way now.
@hate honestly I am done. I just highly disagree with your ethics and how you handle things. There's no other way to say it. We're obviously not going to get anywhere with this argument. I am done. Seeya
teken in of kom bij fanpop om uw commentaar toe te voegen