On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Matthew Hunter wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:42:31PM -0800, Philip Hart <philiph at SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 Talpianna at aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/18/2003 1:26:15 PM US Mountain Standard Time, > > > philiph at SLAC.Stanford.EDU writes: > > > Or she might not have bothered. I believe I recall Vlad saying she likes > > > to be announced as just SL - maybe he doesn't realize there's nothing > > > more to be announced... > > > Perhaps in the spirit of one of the great rival courtesans of fin de siecle > > > Paris. One of them once entered Maxim's one evening wearing all the jewelry > > > she'd been given--lit up the room with the blaze. Next day her rival entered > > > Maxim's wearing no jewelry at all--followed by her maid wearing all her > > > mistress's jewelry. > > Were maids allowed openly to have mistresses? > > The maid's mistress, ie, the rival courtesan herself. Dude, you're standing on my joke. And wiping your muddy boots off on it. > > Even in gay Paree that might have been a bit much. > > Seriously, I don't understand how this is effective one-up-womanship. > > The rival courtesan demonstrated, in a single stroke: > > 1) That she was beautiful without need for jewelry > 2) That she didn't care about the financial rewards of her position > 3) Indirectly accusing her rival of caring about those rewards > 4) That her MAID, whose taste may be questionable, and whose > status is certainly lower, could afford jewelry of a quality > and quantity (presumably) to match her rival's best. > 5) And if 4 is true, the rival courtesan herself must be able to > match and exceed the original display... > 6) ... but has the taste not to do so, as it would be a petty > contest.... > 7) ... with one of her inferiors. Half of these seem to contradict the others - but ok. Anyway I really just wanted to coin or use the word "one-up-womanship."