-=> Quoting Maurice Kinal to Nancy Backus on 10-15-07  17:31 <=-

 NB>>  Of course, if the charm was merely superficial, it
 NB>> could hurt if it served to cover up what would become major problems.

 MK> Yes but other attributes could also mask problems and argueably the
 MK> problems  themselves would be the badness and not charmingness itself. 

I'll agree that other attributes could also mask problems.  Also that
the problems are the true badness, not the charmingness itself, except
in a secondary fashion.

 MK> Also one has to  wonder if indeed charmingness is a mask of flaws.

I've seen it to be so, at least in the short run.  It can divert
attention away from a clear assessment.  Particularly, as beforesaid, if
the charm is merely superficial.  If rooted in internal graciousness,
there is less likelihood that it is but a mask.

 NB>> Hmmmm....  I think I see the flaw in your theory...  Second child in 
 NB>> my family was not at all charming (she was instead both more cold and 
 NB>> more heatedly violent), but the third child was...

 MK> Perhaps that is only a family dynamics thing?  Maybe you are too close
 MK> to be a  good judge of your particular siblings and given that you are
 MK> the first, the  second was forced to deal with you directly wrt pecking
 MK> order.  The third had  all that groundwork taken care of by the second
 MK> and thus may cloud this issue  from your perspective and thus only
 MK> seems more charming.

I think you'd find that I am merely stating family concensus, were you
able to poll my other siblings.  I was not usually the one subject to
the violence, although I often had to become the peacemaker.  Third
child routinely charmed siblings, parents and outsiders alike.  But,
still and all, it could have been a family dynamics thing all the same.

 MK> Or fall within margin of error, whatever the margin of error would be
 MK> if there  actually was a margin of error.  Details, details, eh?

Yeah...  Details, details...  :)

 MK> Given the staying power I'd be forced to conclude compatibility is
 MK> maxed out.   As far as enduring relationships are concerned,
 MK> compatibilty would be the  biggest factor, nevermind charm.

 MK> Hm.  What were you saying about convolution?

Indeed...  

 MK>> Hm.  That poses an interesting twist to my theory.
 NB>> I thought you might find it a bit interesting... :)

 MK> For sure.  Hadn't thought of that twist before this and have to wonder
 MK> how that  would effect synchronicity, especially for later siblings if
 MK> there were later  siblings.  Might be a phase shift.  If so then
 MK> triplets or even greater mutiple  births potentially would cause a
 MK> greater shift in phase. 

True... that could be a possibility... :)

 NB>> She was* charming.  Well-liked and respected by those she came
 NB>> into contact with,

 MK> Was she the first born of the two?  Also was her twin charming?

She was the younger of the two, which is why I called her the youngest
of four.  There was an older sister, and then an older brother, and
rather later the twin girls.  Her twin was pleasant, but not nearly as
charming.  I did get a chance to meet her, when we went out to Idaho for
a couple of weeks visit.

 NB>> Exercise doesn't need to be a vigorous workout, you know... :)
 MK> Okay.  Just checking.

Besides, we are keeping some sort of flow in the echo... whether or not
this is actually exercise... 

ttyl          neb

... Can you imagine the silence if everyone said only what he knows?

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32