<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: September Roundup</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.efsavage.com/blog/posts/roundup_september_2007/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.efsavage.com/blog/posts/roundup_september_2007/</link>
	<description>Good stuff, updated weekly(ish)</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:53:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brian Boyden</title>
		<link>http://www.efsavage.com/blog/posts/roundup_september_2007/#comment-7203</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Boyden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.efsavage.com/blog/posts/roundup_september_2007/#comment-7203</guid>
		<description>I don't know how you stumbled up on the Golden Ratio, but I saw something on BBC America one night about it.  John Cleese (of Monty Python fame) has a show (or mini-series) called "Faces" or something like that...in which he talks about what makes people attractive to others.  About half the show was about this ratio, and how all sorts of random parts of our bodies work out the 1.6 to 1 - on our hands, our faces, etc...

Or, technically, how if we DID have exactly a 1.6 to 1 ratio we would be "attractive", while most of us don't.

Elizabeth Hurley had the perfect 1.6 to 1 "face mask", while John Cleese was WAY off.  These two examples were all I needed to see to believe the theory 100%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know how you stumbled up on the Golden Ratio, but I saw something on BBC America one night about it.  John Cleese (of Monty Python fame) has a show (or mini-series) called &#8220;Faces&#8221; or something like that&#8230;in which he talks about what makes people attractive to others.  About half the show was about this ratio, and how all sorts of random parts of our bodies work out the 1.6 to 1 - on our hands, our faces, etc&#8230;</p>
<p>Or, technically, how if we DID have exactly a 1.6 to 1 ratio we would be &#8220;attractive&#8221;, while most of us don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Elizabeth Hurley had the perfect 1.6 to 1 &#8220;face mask&#8221;, while John Cleese was WAY off.  These two examples were all I needed to see to believe the theory 100%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
