From: Kevin Gleeson on 25 Mar 2010 16:29
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:21:58 -0700 (PDT), JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com>
>On Mar 25, 6:31�pm, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...(a)imagine-it.com.au>
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:54:37 -0700 (PDT), JL <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com>
>> >I still think it's all about mating displays....
>> Totally it is.
>> But aren't we sophistcated enough to have gone beyond that?
>ROTFLMAO !! Yeah right, when every second person has managed to get
>beyond needing an imaginary friend you may have an argument !
Unfortunately I agree with you. It was pretty much a rhetorical
question. I can't see it happening.
Speaking of the people with imaginary friends I notice they tend to be
one group of males who still tend to dress up in frippery. Zebee made
reference to religion earlier and I started thinking about the
Catholic robes and the Buddhist robes - with the Buddhist robes at
least there seems to be no definition between men and women. Slightly
different to the Cafflicks.
From: David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 25 Mar 2010 16:51
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:41:12 +0000 (UTC), Zebee Johnstone
> I am surprised no one's done a survey of the number of high functioning
> autistics in academic ranks of the science depts of sandstone
> universities, bet it's well above the population average.
I recall joking that the universty as a institution was a stealth
mental health facility.
From: CrazyCam on 25 Mar 2010 17:15
<big snip of all sorts of stuff about fashions in the past>
Geez, you folk either don't get out much, or wander about with your eyes
Go up to Pie in the Sky, more or less any half decent day.
Look at the push bike riders and the motorcycle riders.
Pay attention when you do so.
From: bikerbetty on 25 Mar 2010 18:34
On Mar 26, 7:15 am, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
> bikerbetty wrote:
> > betty, not too sure how I feel about all this,
> > but extremely gratified - totally blown away, in fact -
> > by the support of the Betty Faction on the panel.
> I'm sort of thinking "Yes Minister" the more I hear about this school :)
Omigod! You're right! If I get the job I don't think I'll ever be able
to look the Head in the eye without thinking of Jim Hacker and
betty, also starting to see the similarities
between Bernard/Sir Humphrey and the
members of the Betty Faction. Wotta hoot!
From: Zebee Johnstone on 25 Mar 2010 21:10
In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:23:37 +1100
G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
> I don't think that just because Zebees example is a subgroup that you
> can assume the tendency isn't widespread, or else why do similar effects
> occur amongst unrelated groups?
A motorcycle rider in lurid leathers is getting the same protection as
one in a plain black set of the same kind. but is signalling other things as well.
What they aren't signalling is a dislike of shopping...
One thing the cultures do give is the ability to wear things the
dominant culture frowns on.
Not all members of the subcultures do take that opportunity, you'll
find motorcyclists in plain leathers, cyclists in plain lycra, and
people at SF cons who don't dress up. But the cultures allow and
approve dressing up and people take the opportunity.
Gahan Wilson had a series of cartoons on the theme "When you are a
grownup" and my favourite is "When you are a grownup you get to play
dressup with real things"
- proud owner of a welded mail shirt, fully articulated finger
gauntlets with sliding rivets, a burgonet helm with bevor and
moving visor, a longsword, two rapiers, and a schiavona arming
sword. My inner 13yo is ecstatic!