Its possible I missled myself Justamom . . . I mean I couldn't be
wrong because that is not in my contract
. I thought that you were offering an alternative theory to the one I presented. The key words being
on the other hand. In context doesn't that usually mean a disputing or modifying point? A kind of "but"?
My conclusion was reinforced after reading Shopgirl's reply, because she seemed to believe the same. She remembered reading the attraction theory and thought that my presentation disputed it. Which is why it "threw" her.
So I guess I'd have to ask, being brain dead before my first cup of coffee, what did you mean by "on the other hand"? lol
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by justamom
On theother hand, I have read that it is the father that is the physical model for the attraction a female has to her mate. For instance, if her father bore a bead, the girl would most likely be attracted to hairier men.
Now where can I find a link to show I actually read that? You got me!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
__________________________________________________
__
originally posted by Shopgirl
Hello justamom
That's what I remember learning, that it's the father who is the model for the daughter. So, what James wrote threw me for a loop. I did not mean for it to seem like, "and where did you hear THAT one from?" I'm genuinely interested in the source of this theory. I just thought I'd ask. Perhaps he does know. That's all. But thanks for the reply.
shopgirl