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 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 15:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601111525200.15034@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156425 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, 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 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. 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. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 13:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <da20f20b-c2b5-43e7-8b64-17893f1bcebc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156434 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601111815160.15391@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156441 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, 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. > I haven't had a real haircut since I was 12, in 1972. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n71fli$cq5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156441 |
On 1/11/2016 3:10 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Likewise, when boys began to wear longer hair in the 1970s, many > of their parents and teachers went ballistic over it. In Catholic > schools, hair too long (or skirt too short) was a serious breach > of discipline. The elders in that era saw the long hair as > rebellion and hated it. Geez, I remember some parents mandating > their sons wear their hair pretty short as a backlash against > long hair, even moderately long hair. > > Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so > attractive. > What, you think I oughta wear it down, instead? But then kids ask me if I'm Santa Claus. (I tell 'em it's a seasonal job, work your buns off in December and unemployed the rest of the year. In my neighborhood, they believe it.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 22:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30fe42b5d3e80db2989ded@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156457 |
In article <n71fli$cq5$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com says... > > On 1/11/2016 3:10 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > Likewise, when boys began to wear longer hair in the 1970s, many > > of their parents and teachers went ballistic over it. In Catholic > > schools, hair too long (or skirt too short) was a serious breach > > of discipline. The elders in that era saw the long hair as > > rebellion and hated it. Geez, I remember some parents mandating > > their sons wear their hair pretty short as a backlash against > > long hair, even moderately long hair. > > > > Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so > > attractive. > > > > What, you think I oughta wear it down, instead? But then kids ask me > if I'm Santa Claus. (I tell 'em it's a seasonal job, work your buns > off in December and unemployed the rest of the year. In my > neighborhood, they believe it.) Alas I finally gave mine up and went the other way to a buzz cut. The reason? Something about having a 1.5 horsepower router (a woodworking tool with a very sharp blade spinning 30,000 RPM) climbing your hair toward your face can induce you to reconsider your priorities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 00:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601120004470.15700@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156467 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <n71fli$cq5$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com > says... >> >> On 1/11/2016 3:10 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> Likewise, when boys began to wear longer hair in the 1970s, many >>> of their parents and teachers went ballistic over it. In Catholic >>> schools, hair too long (or skirt too short) was a serious breach >>> of discipline. The elders in that era saw the long hair as >>> rebellion and hated it. Geez, I remember some parents mandating >>> their sons wear their hair pretty short as a backlash against >>> long hair, even moderately long hair. >>> >>> Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so >>> attractive. >>> >> >> What, you think I oughta wear it down, instead? But then kids ask me >> if I'm Santa Claus. (I tell 'em it's a seasonal job, work your buns >> off in December and unemployed the rest of the year. In my >> neighborhood, they believe it.) > > Alas I finally gave mine up and went the other way to a buzz cut. The > reason? Something about having a 1.5 horsepower router (a woodworking > tool with a very sharp blade spinning 30,000 RPM) climbing your hair > toward your face can induce you to reconsider your priorities. > I ruined my first electric drill (and my hair) about 1974 when I kept getting my hair caught in the drill. Such mistakes make you safer, I got more careful and it hasn't happened in decades. But I've braided it since 1984, so that helps a lot. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <se8ly.194309$Cg1.138403@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #156467 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >In article <n71fli$cq5$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com >says... >> >> On 1/11/2016 3:10 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >> > Likewise, when boys began to wear longer hair in the 1970s, many >> > of their parents and teachers went ballistic over it. In Catholic >> > schools, hair too long (or skirt too short) was a serious breach >> > of discipline. The elders in that era saw the long hair as >> > rebellion and hated it. Geez, I remember some parents mandating >> > their sons wear their hair pretty short as a backlash against >> > long hair, even moderately long hair. >> > >> > Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so >> > attractive. >> > >> >> What, you think I oughta wear it down, instead? But then kids ask me >> if I'm Santa Claus. (I tell 'em it's a seasonal job, work your buns >> off in December and unemployed the rest of the year. In my >> neighborhood, they believe it.) > >Alas I finally gave mine up and went the other way to a buzz cut. The >reason? Something about having a 1.5 horsepower router (a woodworking >tool with a very sharp blade spinning 30,000 RPM) climbing your hair >toward your face can induce you to reconsider your priorities. Try it with a 3HP shaper spinning a 3" panel raising bit at 15krpm. Or the drum sander. Or the lathe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 16:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30ff33b224d485a7989df0@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156494 |
In article <se8ly.194309$Cg1.138403@fx10.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home says... > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > >In article <n71fli$cq5$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com > >says... > >> > >> On 1/11/2016 3:10 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> > >> > Likewise, when boys began to wear longer hair in the 1970s, many > >> > of their parents and teachers went ballistic over it. In Catholic > >> > schools, hair too long (or skirt too short) was a serious breach > >> > of discipline. The elders in that era saw the long hair as > >> > rebellion and hated it. Geez, I remember some parents mandating > >> > their sons wear their hair pretty short as a backlash against > >> > long hair, even moderately long hair. > >> > > >> > Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so > >> > attractive. > >> > > >> > >> What, you think I oughta wear it down, instead? But then kids ask me > >> if I'm Santa Claus. (I tell 'em it's a seasonal job, work your buns > >> off in December and unemployed the rest of the year. In my > >> neighborhood, they believe it.) > > > >Alas I finally gave mine up and went the other way to a buzz cut. The > >reason? Something about having a 1.5 horsepower router (a woodworking > >tool with a very sharp blade spinning 30,000 RPM) climbing your hair > >toward your face can induce you to reconsider your priorities. > > Try it with a 3HP shaper spinning a 3" panel raising bit at 15krpm. > > Or the drum sander. > > Or the lathe. Took you three times to get the hint?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n73tej220d0@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156544 |
On 2016-01-12, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <se8ly.194309$Cg1.138403@fx10.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home > says... > >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Alas I finally gave mine up and went the other way to a buzz cut. The >>> reason? Something about having a 1.5 horsepower router (a woodworking >>> tool with a very sharp blade spinning 30,000 RPM) climbing your hair >>> toward your face can induce you to reconsider your priorities. >> >> Try it with a 3HP shaper spinning a 3" panel raising bit at 15krpm. >> >> Or the drum sander. >> >> Or the lathe. > > Took you three times to get the hint? "Almost cut my hair..." -- David Crosby -- /~\ 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 | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 08:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn99drm.54v.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #156457 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:02:07 -0600, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > On 1/11/2016 3:10 PM, 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. >> > > What, you think I oughta wear it down, instead? But then kids ask me > if I'm Santa Claus. (I tell 'em it's a seasonal job, work your buns > off in December and unemployed the rest of the year. In my > neighborhood, they believe it.) > I too have long white flowing locks and get the same sort of comment. I refuse to put it in a pony tail...as someone said "What do you find under a pony tail? A horses ass!" :-) -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 06:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30feb3fe447d88c9989def@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156477 |
In article <slrnn99drm.54v.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de>, plan.b@bluesomatic.org says... > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:02:07 -0600, Dave Garland > <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > > On 1/11/2016 3:10 PM, 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. > >> > > > > What, you think I oughta wear it down, instead? But then kids ask me > > if I'm Santa Claus. (I tell 'em it's a seasonal job, work your buns > > off in December and unemployed the rest of the year. In my > > neighborhood, they believe it.) > > > > I too have long white flowing locks and get the same sort of comment. I've got a number 2 buzz cut and get that. I'm slowly developing a repertoire of elf jokes. > I refuse to put it in a pony tail...as someone said "What do you find > under a pony tail? A horses ass!" :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 07:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160112071925.1d91d189d35392d1ed942ae7@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156441 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:10:09 -0800 (PST) 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 My school had a strict rule that hair must be no longer than collar length, I gather that was a hard won concession of the 60s over short back and sides. When we changed from being the County High School for Boys to being a sixth form college the rules were all but abolished, although some girls (that was part of the change) did get told to dress a little less provocatively. I wore mine carefully collar length at first, and in the summer leading up to my sixth form let it grow long. I learned a useful lesson thereby. It is often said that first impressions are important, and indeed they are, but if you can be assured of the chance to create a second impression then having an unimportant negative in the first impression (long hair, sloppy clothes) makes the strong positive you (must) provide in the second impression stand out all the more. To quote my sixth form maths teacher on the subject (as closely as I can recall) "When I first saw him I thought oh god what I have I been landed with, then I discovered that he was a *mathematician*.". We got on very well indeed. > Of course, today seeing a 50 y/o guy with a pony tail isn't so > attractive. Don't look at me then. -- 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 | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 07:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dbf861ee-0bd2-4c08-8a52-310c09a60e40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156475 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 16:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160112162234.bab51b959e77b73979f993ad@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156499 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:26:41 -0800 (PST) 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. There seem to be quite a few of us in here, perhaps not surprisingly. I wonder how many of us have posix compliant[*] beards. [*] As mine was described fairly recently. -- 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 | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n73fo1$tq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156513 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:26:41 -0800 (PST) > 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. > > There seem to be quite a few of us in here, perhaps not > surprisingly. I wonder how many of us have posix compliant[*] beards. > > [*] As mine was described fairly recently. Don't know about Posix, but have close trimmed beard/mustache. Used to wear my hair long, starting in 1962. During my motorcycle era, had hair half way down my back. Never tied it up, way too much hair for that. Now I do too much swimming for long hair. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 05:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfkulbFglc6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156513 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message news:20160112162234.bab51b959e77b73979f993ad@eircom.net... > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:26:41 -0800 (PST) > 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. > > There seem to be quite a few of us in here, Yeah, I was rather surprised at how many are long haired hippies in here. > perhaps not surprisingly. I wonder how many of us have posix compliant[*] > beards. I have for 35 or more years now although I mow it back to a stubble every few weeks. Don't like the wet beard effect after a shower. No long hair tho, never have had and now not even a #2 buzz cut, I take the plastic thing off the end and trim it right back to a stubble. Don't go for the current shaved head result tho, too much farting around like with the face. > [*] As mine was described fairly recently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 19:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dl5r9bhuoaipdmkds5l3mvtcq777n49e9i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #156513 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:22:34 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:26:41 -0800 (PST) >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. > > There seem to be quite a few of us in here, perhaps not >surprisingly. I wonder how many of us have posix compliant[*] beards. > >[*] As mine was described fairly recently. I have no beard and no pony tail. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 23:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7kh2m$r2f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156945 |
On 1/18/2016 7:52 PM, JimP wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:22:34 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:26:41 -0800 (PST) >> 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. >> >> There seem to be quite a few of us in here, perhaps not >> surprisingly. I wonder how many of us have posix compliant[*] beards. >> [*] As mine was described fairly recently. > > I have no beard and no pony tail. > Just gotta be different, don't ya?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 10:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s5os9bt14isaobpi7brpfjs4pu3cf94as6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #156967 |
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:22:02 -0600, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >On 1/18/2016 7:52 PM, JimP wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:22:34 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot >> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:26:41 -0800 (PST) >>> 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. >>> >>> There seem to be quite a few of us in here, perhaps not >>> surprisingly. I wonder how many of us have posix compliant[*] beards. > >>> [*] As mine was described fairly recently. >> >> I have no beard and no pony tail. >> >Just gotta be different, don't ya? Yup. But then with my Native American ancestry, beard comes in patches, not solid facial growth. Maybe I could do a beard comb over ? -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 15:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601191550560.29952@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #157010 |
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, JimP wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:22:02 -0600, Dave Garland > <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > >> On 1/18/2016 7:52 PM, JimP wrote: >>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:22:34 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot >>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:26:41 -0800 (PST) >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> There seem to be quite a few of us in here, perhaps not >>>> surprisingly. I wonder how many of us have posix compliant[*] beards. >> >>>> [*] As mine was described fairly recently. >>> >>> I have no beard and no pony tail. >>> >> Just gotta be different, don't ya? > > Yup. But then with my Native American ancestry, beard comes in > patches, not solid facial growth. Maybe I could do a beard comb over ? > I had a beard from when it started to grow, till I was 30. WIth no other experience, I had no idea how people reacted to the beard. I guess a lot of people didn't like them, since shaving it seemed to change how people reacted to me. But, in all that time, I never really trimmed it, but it never became a "great beard". It curled, so I never had one of those long beards that beard growing contests award prizes to. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web