Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #156357 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 388 — 41 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-11 17:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:44 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 13:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 14:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 15:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:41 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-15 20:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 15:47 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-15 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 06:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-16 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-17 03:21 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:46 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-18 22:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-11 01:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-29 09:25 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Simmy Jacks" <sk98@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 04:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:24 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-29 22:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 09:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 11:18 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:10 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 18:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 11:03 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:05 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-01 13:27 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 19:47 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:09 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:28 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 18:44 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 18:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 04:34 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 04:54 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:38 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 01:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:29 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 07:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 19:56 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 21:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 10:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 00:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 13:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 19:30 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 09:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 12:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 16:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 18:35 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-03 05:22 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 20:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 11:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 05:36 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 19:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-02 12:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 16:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 01:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:25 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 08:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:51 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-31 14:09 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:46 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-31 20:16 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 07:19 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 14:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 15:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 12:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 17:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 20:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-01 10:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 10:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-01 12:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-01 16:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-02 17:05 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-02-02 00:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:58 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:26 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-01 00:06 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:02 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:55 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:40 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:13 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 17:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-31 16:33 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0500
Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 18:35 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:51 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 09:10 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 19:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:09 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 08:59 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 18:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 06:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:01 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:18 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 22:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 17:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:18 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-02 07:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 19:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-02 14:14 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 23:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 11:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:31 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 12:40 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 18:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 06:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 15:58 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 14:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 12:43 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 15:27 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:08 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 18:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 19:07 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 13:13 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:03 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-31 02:58 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:32 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-30 07:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-30 11:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-30 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 12:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 00:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-29 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-01-11 09:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 09:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:58 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 10:29 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:45 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 18:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 19:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 12:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 09:35 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-11 18:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-12 01:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:33 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:18 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:12 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 04:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 20:05 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-12 18:36 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-13 21:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-01-13 02:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:16 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:41 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-16 23:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-12 02:56 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:30 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 08:40 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:37 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:38 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-11 11:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:57 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:29 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 20:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-11 02:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:44 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:39 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-12 13:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 17:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:38 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 08:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:07 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 23:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 11:57 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-13 04:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 15:47 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 19:57 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-13 15:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 06:20 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:10 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-14 11:40 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 18:55 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:11 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-15 12:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:50 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-18 16:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-18 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:04 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-14 14:16 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:36 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:09 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:41 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:24 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 16:04 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:49 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:50 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:11 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:16 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:21 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:42 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 15:43 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 09:55 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:07 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:22 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:58 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 11:53 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 15:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 00:15 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 08:29 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:42 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:54 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:41 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 13:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:55 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:03 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 20:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 13:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:15 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 18:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:53 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 00:06 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 16:01 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 07:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-12 13:16 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 19:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-18 23:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:14 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:59 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-14 05:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-12 17:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:44 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 11:31 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 14:00 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 07:03 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 10:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000
Page 19 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 Next page →
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601121358500.16751@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156499 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 2:30:01 AM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >>> Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so >>> attractive. > >> Don't look at me then. > > > I sure wish I never made that statement. > This may be one of the few places (I guess the Grateful Dead newsgroup might get the same response) where you'd get no agreement. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 23:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <877fjcg8ci.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #156475 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:10:09 -0800 (PST)
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so
>> attractive.
Yeah, kids with pony tails are a bummer, eh? Of course, they can be
quite distinguished-looking on a more mature person, such as I am at
74.
I used to get a proper hair cut every year when I visited Concord, NH
but my barber [1] retired sometime in the 80s and I didn't like his
replacement so I gave it up as an unneeded frippery.
> Don't look at me then.
Cheer up, kid. You won't be fifty forever. ;-)
[1] Yes, barber. Not beautologist or pilosity technician or unisexist
or any them newfangled wimpy substitutes.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 05:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160114054435.dcc3992dee51fa1f4008d269@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156625 |
On 13 Jan 2016 23:15:09 -0400 Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > Cheer up, kid. You won't be fifty forever. ;-) Well to be honest I won't be fifty again, I left that behind half a dozen years ago. I don't have haircuts either. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 10:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn99mvr.173.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156441 |
On 2016-01-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:23:23 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: > >> I knew about the game, so I may have a negative image when I see "leisure >> suit". And I guess they could be awful, but I also see now that it was a >> wide range, so some of it was just a less formal suit, rather than it all >> being garish. > > The 1970s were all about being 'garish'. I have pics of my old > office with its bright orange and electric blue cubicles. Part of > the styling of the 1970s was a rebellion against the more conservative > look of the 1960s, such as the plain suits, narrow ties, and white shirts. > > As mentioned, while some businesses were open minded about stylish > clothes, some businesses were conservative and expected an "IBM look" > (such as law offices and engineering firms, and of course IBM.) > > As mentioned, back then, a visit to a Univac or Burroughs branch > office had a different atmosphere than a visit to an IBM office. > > > >> I guess Zoot Suits were a reflection of their times, which is actually >> around WWII. A society that required men to wear suits, so here's an >> exaggerated suit for people to break the shackles of conformity. > > I believe that was the case, and it also was the cause of resentment > against those who sported the look--mainstream society found the > expression of rebellion, especially in wartime, objectionable. > > Likewise, when boys began to wear longer hair in the 1970s, many > of their parents and teachers went ballistic over it. In Catholic > schools, hair too long (or skirt too short) was a serious breach > of discipline. The elders in that era saw the long hair as > rebellion and hated it. Geez, I remember some parents mandating > their sons wear their hair pretty short as a backlash against > long hair, even moderately long hair. > > Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so > attractive. > > One sees ponytails on keeks frequently, and in people who are proficent in graphics. Also, 1960s leftovers, and egomaniacs. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601121346090.16751@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156484 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, mausg@mail.com wrote: > On 2016-01-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:23:23 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: >> >>> I knew about the game, so I may have a negative image when I see "leisure >>> suit". And I guess they could be awful, but I also see now that it was a >>> wide range, so some of it was just a less formal suit, rather than it all >>> being garish. >> >> The 1970s were all about being 'garish'. I have pics of my old >> office with its bright orange and electric blue cubicles. Part of >> the styling of the 1970s was a rebellion against the more conservative >> look of the 1960s, such as the plain suits, narrow ties, and white shirts. >> >> As mentioned, while some businesses were open minded about stylish >> clothes, some businesses were conservative and expected an "IBM look" >> (such as law offices and engineering firms, and of course IBM.) >> >> As mentioned, back then, a visit to a Univac or Burroughs branch >> office had a different atmosphere than a visit to an IBM office. >> >> >> >>> I guess Zoot Suits were a reflection of their times, which is actually >>> around WWII. A society that required men to wear suits, so here's an >>> exaggerated suit for people to break the shackles of conformity. >> >> I believe that was the case, and it also was the cause of resentment >> against those who sported the look--mainstream society found the >> expression of rebellion, especially in wartime, objectionable. >> >> Likewise, when boys began to wear longer hair in the 1970s, many >> of their parents and teachers went ballistic over it. In Catholic >> schools, hair too long (or skirt too short) was a serious breach >> of discipline. The elders in that era saw the long hair as >> rebellion and hated it. Geez, I remember some parents mandating >> their sons wear their hair pretty short as a backlash against >> long hair, even moderately long hair. >> >> Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so >> attractive. >> >> > > One sees ponytails on keeks frequently, and in people who are proficent > in graphics. Also, 1960s leftovers, and egomaniacs. > > But at least it's genuine. Was it the nineties or the late eighties where "pony tails" seemed common on men, but it was some of their hair allowed to grow longer, otherwise their hair was a "normal" hairstyle. It was a trend for a while. I can't help but think Willy Nelson wears a wig, his braids are too thick and not grey enough. But Chandler Laughlin was like a proto-hippie, apparently having long hair in 1965 when it wasn't yet common and helping set the stage for the San Francisco scene. And he kept his hair long, I think to his death a couple of years ago. And it was long and thick, so who knows. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005292302698363@aca40449.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #156441 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Likewise, when boys began to wear longer hair in the 1970s, many > of their parents and teachers went ballistic over it. In Catholic > schools, hair too long (or skirt too short) was a serious breach > of discipline. The elders in that era saw the long hair as > rebellion and hated it. Geez, I remember some parents mandating > their sons wear their hair pretty short as a backlash against > long hair, even moderately long hair. > > Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so > attractive. Of course it is. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 16:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160112161841.dff06485d303f497b3f6e8bf@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156491 |
On 12 Jan 2016 13:24:26 GMT jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so > > attractive. > > Of course it is. Now that's the kind of thing I like to hear. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1d8ly.194308$Cg1.106544@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #156441 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:23:23 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: > >> I knew about the game, so I may have a negative image when I see "leisure >> suit". And I guess they could be awful, but I also see now that it was a >> wide range, so some of it was just a less formal suit, rather than it all >> being garish. > >The 1970s were all about being 'garish'. I have pics of my old >office with its bright orange and electric blue cubicles. Part of >the styling of the 1970s was a rebellion against the more conservative >look of the 1960s, such as the plain suits, narrow ties, and white shirts. > >As mentioned, while some businesses were open minded about stylish >clothes, some businesses were conservative and expected an "IBM look" >(such as law offices and engineering firms, and of course IBM.) > >As mentioned, back then, a visit to a Univac or Burroughs branch >office had a different atmosphere than a visit to an IBM office. It was jeans and t-shirts at the Burroughs Pasadena plant by the late 70's (the Burroughs videos on you-tube from the 60's show white shirt and narrow ties).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 07:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f15eac75-2a1c-40ff-80e7-0d0d187d8999@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156493 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:37:50 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: > hancock4@ writes: > >As mentioned, back then, a visit to a Univac or Burroughs branch > >office had a different atmosphere than a visit to an IBM office. > > It was jeans and t-shirts at the Burroughs Pasadena plant > by the late 70's (the Burroughs videos on you-tube from the 60's show > white shirt and narrow ties). In the 1970s, the Burroughs and Univac staff still wore ties or dresses. However, the men would wear colored shirts, not plain white, and suits not necessarily of dark blue or gray, as an IBMer would wear. Also, there was a 'sense' of less 'formality' in Univac and Burroughs offices than at IBM offices. Perhaps it was the myth influencing my perspective, but IBM offices always seemed so "perfect", nothing out of place, everything very neat and clean, no loose papers on a table or desktop, dignified. However, as mentioned, IBM training classes were far superior. The instructors were excellent and always well prepared--all the materials and equipment were fully ready to go. In contrast, at Univac and Burroughs, instructors weren't ready to go, and often they had to fiddle with equipment to make it work (or we students had to help them.) Someone at IBM must have been a boy scout, because IBMers were almost always well prepared.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 08:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn99dka.54v.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #156425 |
On 11 Jan 2016 19:45:20 GMT, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote: > > There was a game, early on, called "Leisure suit Larry, looking for > love in all the wrong places", Thats all I know, with a title like > that, the game would be a letdown. the "Zoot Suit", would have been > different. > > Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of Lounge Lizards. (ISTR) -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052922FB3CF37F@aca40449.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #156425 |
mausg@mail.com wrote: > On 2016-01-11, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:57:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> >>>> One must be careful (as roddy so gracelessly points out) to not >>>> assume that the depiction of culture on popular media in those >>>> days actually reflected the reality of the culture of the time. >>> >>> I felt the items listed did indeed reflect the cultural atmosphere >>> of the times. >>> >>> AFAIK, _adults_ (not kids) did always wear a tie to work at office >>> jobs, and often wore a tie to go out socializing. Family photographs >>> of even informal visits show my parents and their guests in nice >>> clothing. This year, it was warm at Christmas, and some guests >>> at dinner had on flip flops and gym shorts, which I felt was quite >>> a contrast. >>> >>> I will note that in the 1975, the mens' clothes were stylish of >>> the time--wide bright ties, jackets with fancy stitching, colored >>> shirts. I think it was called the "mod" look or a remnant thereof. >>> No one was wearing a conservative "IBM suit". It matches the photos >>> I have of my workplace from that era. >>> >> I was just reading something about "leisure suits", which I knew about, >> but not sure I really grasped. But they had a photo of men in various >> "leisure suits", so now I have a better idea. It's less about the >> "polyester" makeup of the suits, but less conservative styling, more >> variety. So that accounts for people wearing almost jungle safari >> outfits, you could get suits in that period that had more pockets and a >> lighter material. I suppose the real change was fewer wore ties with >> them. >> >> Michael > > There was a game, early on, called "Leisure suit Larry, looking for > love in all the wrong places", Thats all I know, with a title like > that, the game would be a letdown. the "Zoot Suit", would have been > different. I have that game. It was designed for male teens who were seriously suffering from testosterone poisoning. The sexy jokes were funny at first but got tiresome early on. The game was so-so and not very interesting because more effort was spent on bad jokes and puns than the game play. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <809194052.474308053.288301.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156414 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:57:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> >>> One must be careful (as roddy so gracelessly points out) to not >>> assume that the depiction of culture on popular media in those >>> days actually reflected the reality of the culture of the time. >> >> I felt the items listed did indeed reflect the cultural atmosphere >> of the times. >> >> AFAIK, _adults_ (not kids) did always wear a tie to work at office >> jobs, and often wore a tie to go out socializing. Family photographs >> of even informal visits show my parents and their guests in nice >> clothing. This year, it was warm at Christmas, and some guests >> at dinner had on flip flops and gym shorts, which I felt was quite >> a contrast. >> >> I will note that in the 1975, the mens' clothes were stylish of >> the time--wide bright ties, jackets with fancy stitching, colored >> shirts. I think it was called the "mod" look or a remnant thereof. >> No one was wearing a conservative "IBM suit". It matches the photos >> I have of my workplace from that era. >> > I was just reading something about "leisure suits", which I knew about, > but not sure I really grasped. But they had a photo of men in various > "leisure suits", so now I have a better idea. It's less about the > "polyester" makeup of the suits, but less conservative styling, more > variety. So that accounts for people wearing almost jungle safari > outfits, you could get suits in that period that had more pockets and a > lighter material. I suppose the real change was fewer wore ties with > them. > I remember them well. The polyester didn't wear well at all, and the styling was abominable. They tended to come in loud colors - I had a forest green one. That's one fad I'm glad died a quick death. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dfkr1mFt0sbU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156507 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:28:05 -0500, Peter Flass wrote: > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:57:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> >>>> One must be careful (as roddy so gracelessly points out) to not >>>> assume that the depiction of culture on popular media in those days >>>> actually reflected the reality of the culture of the time. >>> >>> I felt the items listed did indeed reflect the cultural atmosphere of >>> the times. >>> >>> AFAIK, _adults_ (not kids) did always wear a tie to work at office >>> jobs, and often wore a tie to go out socializing. Family photographs >>> of even informal visits show my parents and their guests in nice >>> clothing. This year, it was warm at Christmas, and some guests at >>> dinner had on flip flops and gym shorts, which I felt was quite a >>> contrast. >>> >>> I will note that in the 1975, the mens' clothes were stylish of the >>> time--wide bright ties, jackets with fancy stitching, colored shirts. >>> I think it was called the "mod" look or a remnant thereof. No one was >>> wearing a conservative "IBM suit". It matches the photos I have of my >>> workplace from that era. >>> >> I was just reading something about "leisure suits", which I knew about, >> but not sure I really grasped. But they had a photo of men in various >> "leisure suits", so now I have a better idea. It's less about the >> "polyester" makeup of the suits, but less conservative styling, more >> variety. So that accounts for people wearing almost jungle safari >> outfits, you could get suits in that period that had more pockets and a >> lighter material. I suppose the real change was fewer wore ties with >> them. >> >> > I remember them well. The polyester didn't wear well at all, and the > styling was abominable. They tended to come in loud colors - I had a > forest green one. That's one fad I'm glad died a quick death. I had one in what can only be descrobed as gold Dralon. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n73i0j116vr@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156516 |
On 2016-01-12, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:28:05 -0500, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> >>> I was just reading something about "leisure suits", which I knew about, >>> but not sure I really grasped. But they had a photo of men in various >>> "leisure suits", so now I have a better idea. It's less about the >>> "polyester" makeup of the suits, but less conservative styling, more >>> variety. So that accounts for people wearing almost jungle safari >>> outfits, you could get suits in that period that had more pockets and a >>> lighter material. I suppose the real change was fewer wore ties with >>> them. >> >> I remember them well. The polyester didn't wear well at all, and the >> styling was abominable. They tended to come in loud colors - I had a >> forest green one. That's one fad I'm glad died a quick death. > > I had one in what can only be descrobed as gold Dralon. When my wife-to-be and I were getting serious (late '80s), she started going through my closet. She divided my clothes into two sections: a large one containing my double-knit suits, loud shirts, etc., and a much smaller section with plainer clothes. I pointed to the small section and said, "That one goes, then?" "No," she said, "that one stays. The other one [points at the large section] goes." And that was the end of my double-knits. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7c752$rjh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156530 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:n73i0j116vr@news7.newsguy.com... > On 2016-01-12, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > > When my wife-to-be and I were getting serious (late '80s), she started > going through my closet. She divided my clothes into two sections: a > large one containing my double-knit suits, loud shirts, etc., and > a much smaller section with plainer clothes. I pointed to the > small section and said, "That one goes, then?" "No," she said, > "that one stays. The other one [points at the large section] goes." > And that was the end of my double-knits. > This reminds me of a TV commercial advertising rental storage units. A couple was telling another that they were combining households and moving in together. In her "mind's eye", the girl saw all her furniture in the new combined residence. The boy in his "mind's eye" saw all his stuff sitting out on the curb and the girl was setting it on fire!!! So he rented a storage unit... -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 11:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dfkrjdFfrclU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156507 |
"Peter Flass" wrote: <wrt leisure suits> > I remember them well. The polyester didn't wear well at all, and the > styling was abominable. They tended to come in loud colors - I had a > forest > green one. That's one fad I'm glad died a quick death. They always seemed to me like a fad that never came to life, a bit like the Edsel. Before it got any critical mass, it was already an object to be poked fun at.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601121400310.16751@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156507 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Peter Flass wrote: > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:57:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> >>>> One must be careful (as roddy so gracelessly points out) to not >>>> assume that the depiction of culture on popular media in those >>>> days actually reflected the reality of the culture of the time. >>> >>> I felt the items listed did indeed reflect the cultural atmosphere >>> of the times. >>> >>> AFAIK, _adults_ (not kids) did always wear a tie to work at office >>> jobs, and often wore a tie to go out socializing. Family photographs >>> of even informal visits show my parents and their guests in nice >>> clothing. This year, it was warm at Christmas, and some guests >>> at dinner had on flip flops and gym shorts, which I felt was quite >>> a contrast. >>> >>> I will note that in the 1975, the mens' clothes were stylish of >>> the time--wide bright ties, jackets with fancy stitching, colored >>> shirts. I think it was called the "mod" look or a remnant thereof. >>> No one was wearing a conservative "IBM suit". It matches the photos >>> I have of my workplace from that era. >>> >> I was just reading something about "leisure suits", which I knew about, >> but not sure I really grasped. But they had a photo of men in various >> "leisure suits", so now I have a better idea. It's less about the >> "polyester" makeup of the suits, but less conservative styling, more >> variety. So that accounts for people wearing almost jungle safari >> outfits, you could get suits in that period that had more pockets and a >> lighter material. I suppose the real change was fewer wore ties with >> them. >> > > I remember them well. The polyester didn't wear well at all, and the > styling was abominable. They tended to come in loud colors - I had a forest > green one. That's one fad I'm glad died a quick death. > But the colors matched all the appliances in the kitchen around that time. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <419755344.474322392.624416.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156533 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:57:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>> >>>>> One must be careful (as roddy so gracelessly points out) to not >>>>> assume that the depiction of culture on popular media in those >>>>> days actually reflected the reality of the culture of the time. >>>> >>>> I felt the items listed did indeed reflect the cultural atmosphere >>>> of the times. >>>> >>>> AFAIK, _adults_ (not kids) did always wear a tie to work at office >>>> jobs, and often wore a tie to go out socializing. Family photographs >>>> of even informal visits show my parents and their guests in nice >>>> clothing. This year, it was warm at Christmas, and some guests >>>> at dinner had on flip flops and gym shorts, which I felt was quite >>>> a contrast. >>>> >>>> I will note that in the 1975, the mens' clothes were stylish of >>>> the time--wide bright ties, jackets with fancy stitching, colored >>>> shirts. I think it was called the "mod" look or a remnant thereof. >>>> No one was wearing a conservative "IBM suit". It matches the photos >>>> I have of my workplace from that era. >>>> >>> I was just reading something about "leisure suits", which I knew about, >>> but not sure I really grasped. But they had a photo of men in various >>> "leisure suits", so now I have a better idea. It's less about the >>> "polyester" makeup of the suits, but less conservative styling, more >>> variety. So that accounts for people wearing almost jungle safari >>> outfits, you could get suits in that period that had more pockets and a >>> lighter material. I suppose the real change was fewer wore ties with >>> them. >>> >> >> I remember them well. The polyester didn't wear well at all, and the >> styling was abominable. They tended to come in loud colors - I had a forest >> green one. That's one fad I'm glad died a quick death. >> > But the colors matched all the appliances in the kitchen around that time. > Coordinated maybe. Appliance green was "avocado", a lighter shade. Harvest gold was also popular. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 06:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dficf5Fr8f0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156375 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:a3a07c20-65f3-425d-9575-0143efa221a6@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:57:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> One must be careful (as roddy so gracelessly points out) to not >> assume that the depiction of culture on popular media in those >> days actually reflected the reality of the culture of the time. > > I felt the items listed did indeed reflect the cultural atmosphere > of the times. > > AFAIK, _adults_ (not kids) did always wear a tie to work at office jobs, Not here they didn't. And none of the hippies did either. > and often wore a tie to go out socializing. And much more often didn't IMO even in the 60s which was after all when the hippies were so common. Family photographs > of even informal visits show my parents and their guests in nice > clothing. Mine don't. The military stuff does, but that's a different thing entirely and was from the 40s anyway. This year, it was warm at Christmas, and some guests > at dinner had on flip flops and gym shorts, which I felt was quite > a contrast. Ours were always like that, because its summer here. I built my house in the very early 70s wearing nothing but a pair of very short shorts and flip flops. I did wear boots and jeans and a jumper in the winter. > I will note that in the 1975, the mens' clothes were stylish of > the time--wide bright ties, jackets with fancy stitching, colored > shirts. I never had any colored shirts. I used to wear khaki drill shirts with button down flap pockets in the winter to work and T shirts in summer. Certainly very bright colors, usually yellow or red etc. And jeans exclusively in winter, shorts in summer. And flip flops to work in summer, and in the workshop too. Their attitude was if you injured your feet that way that was your problem, not theirs. Just the one mate of mine did have a fancy jacket. > I think it was called the "mod" look or a remnant thereof. > No one was wearing a conservative "IBM suit". It matches > the photos I have of my workplace from that era. > Going further back, there's a 1954 film, Picnic, where a man is > chastised by his wife for not wearing a _jacket_ to the _summer_ > picnic. He is wearing a necktie, and there's no question about that. Sure, but is less clear how accurate that is about how the general public was behaving at that time. Your other film from 76 ignores the hippies entirely and they were in the 60s, well before that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 15:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bsg79bp7lb2urdpk9s5g6in1fsoimpkuap@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #156357 |
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:18:08 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >The other day, TCM aired a movie from 1975. I noticed some cultural >differences... > I didn't see it. >--Adult men and women usually wore a tie/jacket or dress (respectively) >whenever they went out, and of course at work. > I didn't unless I was going to a special occasion. >--The adults were married, though not necessarily in good marriages. > I was living with a woman for years without getting married. I didn't get married until many years later. >--Automobiles were big and luxurious inside. > Mine was a mini. >--Many TV sets were only b&w. > My first TV in 1970 was colour but I was in the trade. >--Goofy fast food place. > The only one I remember is Wimpy. I went when I was a kid. Now I don't go to any fast food places. >--Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. > I smoked from about 15 to 29. No problem giving up. >--In different scenes, a character would be observed as not present >and whereabouts unknown. Today, they'd be reached on their cell phone. > I still don't have cell phone as I'm not mobile. >--The telephones in a motel didn't have dials, which was still common >back then. I got my first phone in 1969 because the company paid for it for me to do emergency calls. It didn't have a dial. Steve -- Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web