"Yes. The thing about beautiful people entering a beauty pageant is the entrants don't seem very intelligent. As any intelligent person would think. And this is a reason to deduce that beauty pageants are invalid. By the same reasoning, I don't think Tiger Woods is any good at basket-weaving. Golf tournaments are invalidated. Rudd can't ride a unicycle as well as I can. The last election is invalidated. I know! We who are basket-weaving experts can *mock* Tiger's answers on basket-weaving questions. Then we can feel all smug and clever. Those who fancy they have a place in an intelligentocracy and then throw barbs at those seeking to climb an aesthetocracy (which, like it or not, is a fundamental of Darwinistic evolution and has functioned since preCambrian times) achieve nothing but a demonstration of a lack of the very intelligence they think defines them. Does a beauty pageant function to diminish the achievements of the women's movement, loosely defined, since Pankhurst? Same question different nouns: does the woodchopping event at the Easter Show represent a threat to the achievements of the Industrial Revolution? If I choose to go to the opera, am I denying a place for the glorious entertainment we call television? Was Ian Thorpe a threat to the boat-building industry? Finally, melaniehick, you should learn to spell, and you should also forget thinking that swearing is a useful tool in rhetoric. It isn't. And relax, sweetie! "