Though this will be something of an odd experiment, let me put myself in a pair of metaphorical high heels and toss out some names that I would think might be seen on such a list. I'll leave out the sort of animal/athletic types whose appearance on a list suggested by me might encourage undue speculations.
Daniel Day-Lewis
Richard Branaugh
John Kuzak
Garry Trudeau
Steven Pinker
Tom Waits
Daniel Day-Lewis, John Cusack (you mean?), Eric Clapton, Willem Defoe, Keanu Reeves, Johnny Depp, Yo Yo Ma, Alec Baldwin, Robert Redford, Jim Morrison, Nicholas Cage, Brad Pitt, Tom Skerritt, Wynton Marsalis, Mark Morris, gee, heehee, I can think of a lot if I try.
The full measure of a man was once taken by some conniving haberdasher, or perhaps by his somewhat sardonic sartorial factotum, when it was observed as a universal truism that clothes make the man. Now we learn that such is not necessarily the case; that the weight of a man actually rests on his posterium criterium, which is not to say on anything so substantial as a nice set of buns, but rather on his capacity and willingness to piece together a sampling of witticisms and temerariously post 'em. In this regard, Lear's fool was no doubt the idol of his day.
Lear's fool was no one's fool.
And in that regard, Debacle, you are an idol in ours.
We have several not-fools on this thread and I love them all.
On Blatham's list, let's see.....yes, definately Daniel Day-Lewis, Richard Branuagh's lips are a bit too skinny for me, but I suppose and actually believe, that his intelligence and talent would make up for this small difficulty; John Cuzack...........well, he's a nice guy, but he doesn't do it for me, however I did like him in High Fidelity; Garry Trudeau of course; Steven Pinker.....don't know; and Tom Waits....hummm.
I agree with Piffka about Nicholas Cage but his attraction is not explainable. As I've already said, Jack Nicholson, Harvey Keitel, Jeff Bridges, oh and I shouldn't forget Robert DeNiro, and Philip Seymour Hoffman.
ANNOUNCEMENT- Very Serious. My understanding is that some of you have been found guilty of criteria staring.
CRITERIA STARING IS ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN ON THIS SITE![/size]
Well, if I have been caught staring, I assure you I was unwittingly doing so and had no malicious thought, fore or aft.
I was staring, I'll admit that, but I wasn't starin' at his criteria. I can guarantee that!
I'm more of a forearm/shoulders kinda girl. Criteria rarely factor into the starin' equation.
We men, though resident here on this thread only through the graces of the other gender, would like to protest the clear and obvious sexual objectification of our criteria - we men hate that.
How about if it this unconfirmed staring is done with an admiring glance???
(sneaks shame-faced peek at several criteria, while pretending to listen seriously.........)
I think we can agree that a parenthetical aside can't be considered a confirmation.
(But I only read it for the criteria!)
Uh-huh... this is beginning to sound like a confirmed report.
Criteria staring is my favorite past time. Please don't tell me I can't do it here! No! No! And Blatham, you really shouldn't be pretending to be modest. You'll get a reputation.
Oh Baby, have i got a criterion for you . . .
heeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
okbye
