A Quote by Maryse Mizanin

I would like to prove who I am, my personality. — © Maryse Mizanin
I would like to prove who I am, my personality.
I would say that I have an aspect of my personality which is that I have no personality. That's why I work as an agent. I have the assumed personality of the people I represent. I am like a sponge.
I have often been asked what I wanted to prove by my photographs. The answer is, I don’t want to prove anything. They prove to me, and I am the one who gets the lesson.
I just feel like it would be so against my personality to have this struggle in tennis and just give up. I know it's not me, not who I am, and that would probably affect other parts of my life.
If I'm Colin Kaepernick I have to prove myself. I would say, 'I would love the opportunity to show that I am a championship-winning quarterback again, and I understand that I am not going to be handed anything and that I would love the opportunity to come back.' If he said that it would open the ears of a lot of teams.
I am not somebody who just likes to run. I am a runner. This is the difference between a pastime and a passion. I like to play golf, but I am not a golfer. I like to cook, but I am not a chef. I don't just like to run. I am a runner. It is a passion. It is part of who I am and is woven into the fabric of my personality, character, and psyche.
I suppose people do sometimes not understand the seeming disparity between my onstage personality and my public personality in the press. But I feel that I am definitely a louder, more outspoken person with those I am close to.
I am not good at first or second impressions, and you have to spend some time with me to know me. Also, I don't want to put my best foot forward and prove something, as that is not me. I would rather be me and have you like me for who I am, instead of being someone else.
I think one should take criticism in one's stride and prove oneself. In fact, I would like to thank my critics as their criticism gave me the fire and passion to prove myself.
I like to be as diverse as possible. I think the humorous side and the serious side are both elements of my personality. It's what makes me who I am and if I was to neglect either one of those sides and just focus on one of them, it wouldn't be the full spectrum of my personality.
Could you imagine me and the roasters taking on the GOP field? It would be the greatest show ever. Prove that you can take a joke. Prove that you're a man or woman of the people. Prove that you're not above criticism even in the form of a backhanded compliment.
My habit would have been to veer towards the dark - to prove I was something; edgy, or maybe to prove that I was cognisant of the dark side. Now, with age and confidence, I can say, yeah, that's true, but I am cognisant of the fact that people can do things well. And can be more loving than you expect.
I don’t want to have to be like a Scarlett Johansson – who I have nothing against, but I don’t want to have to go on talk shows and pull out every single SAT word I’ve every learned to prove, like, ‘Take me seriously, I am intelligent, I can speak.’ I don’t want to have to do that. I resent having to prove that I’m not a retard – but I do. And part of it is my own fault.
Young guys kind of have this chip on their shoulder of, 'I want to prove something,' right? 'I've got to prove how tough I am. I've got to prove how good I am.' And man, now as I'm getting older, I think it's almost sad when guys my age and older still have that chip on their shoulder.
It's easy for people to be characterized in public life based upon their personality, and I have a very direct, blunt personality. And I understand why some people would then characterize that, especially people who don't like you, as bullying, but it's not that.
I train like an athlete. I am very competitive. I like to fight. I like to prove my performance.
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!