What difference does it make to you?

Ray Palmer · 20-11-2019 9:16pm

Antares35 wrote: »

I'm rather thankful to be living in a country that doesn't waste police resources protecting the soft ego of men who sport moustaches and imagine that everyone is being mean to them because of it. We have far greater problems!

The reason for the inclusion is because a young goth girl was beaten to death for what she was wearing. If you think that is a waste of police time that is your view.

When I was growing up in Dublin it was quite common for the track suit wearing members of society would regularly attack the hippies, goths, rockers etc... I assume that still remains part of the society young people grow up in now.

I also mentioned people making comments to me as if I was gay which is also a hate crime.

While you think this is just me complaining about comments because I want to get attention there is real world dangers. I know people who lost teeth, broken bones and have scars from these types of things.

Say if your child decides to dress differently do you want them to be in danger?

I get this is after hours but a lot of you really haven't considered the full context and want to make it all about me being sensitive. I am old enough and experienced enough to know if I let somebody intimidate me they will do it again. So I don't put up with it.

Ray Palmer · 20-11-2019 9:25pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not amateur psychology, it's called common sense.

Make yourself stand out, and expect to attract attention, including from less savoury people.

It comes with the territory, you can't start blaming other people.

The choice you make to wear those clothes, or moustache or whatever, is a purely self-indulgent, attention-based one. You're just not happy that you're not getting the type of attention you probably want to get.

No it isn't common sense it is you telling me why I do what I do because you have decided you can tell what I am thinking. You think you can analyse my thoughts.

I would expect you to be the type of person that get angry with people because you think they are trying to get attention. So the type to make a snide remark about what somebody is wearing because you want to take them down a peg or two in your eyes.

The reason I say that is directly because of your assumptions on me which seems to be why people make those comments. They dislike what they are assuming and what they are assume is also wrong.

20-11-2019 9:32pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No it isn't common sense it is you telling me why I do what I do because you have decided you can tell what I am thinking. You think you can analyse my thoughts.

I would expect you to be the type of person that get angry with people because you think they are trying to get attention. So the type to make a snide remark about what somebody is wearing because you want to take them down a peg or two in your eyes.

The reason I say that is directly because of your assumptions on me which seems to be why people make those comments. They dislike what they are assuming and what they are assume is also wrong.

You're damn right I hate attention-seekers, narcissists, and those with no concept of self-awareness.

"Oh I want to do something different, but don't want people to see/notice/comment; but I'll do it anyway, then complain when they do, so I'll do it even more in future and hope they'll change their mind".

LaFuton · 21-11-2019 2:01am

Fart With Abandon

bodhrandude · 21-11-2019 4:07am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The point is people commenting and being violent if they don't like what you are wearing. Not sure why there is any element of 'within reason ' because to some that would mean anything outside the norm is not reasonable.

So what do I not have a point about?

Like the Mods and the Rockers, used to be a metaller for a while back in the early eighties, Quadrophenia made its second big comeback and all the wee neds and skangers in Glasgow started wearing mod parkas and attacking us metal and rock fans (even though the Who were practically metal or heavy rock at that stage) as we queued for gigs. Found it quite funny myself, but could be freaky at times.

Antares35 · 21-11-2019 12:50pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The reason for the inclusion is because a young goth girl was beaten to death for what she was wearing. If you think that is a waste of police time that is your view.

When I was growing up in Dublin it was quite common for the track suit wearing members of society would regularly attack the hippies, goths, rockers etc... I assume that still remains part of the society young people grow up in now.

I also mentioned people making comments to me as if I was gay which is also a hate crime.

While you think this is just me complaining about comments because I want to get attention there is real world dangers. I know people who lost teeth, broken bones and have scars from these types of things.

Say if your child decides to dress differently do you want them to be in danger?

I get this is after hours but a lot of you really haven't considered the full context and want to make it all about me being sensitive. I am old enough and experienced enough to know if I let somebody intimidate me they will do it again. So I don't put up with it.

I'm going to ignore your accusation that I am ok with anyone being killed, and hope that it was a knee jerk reaction.

So, how doe we legislate against people having a go at you? Some kind of "don't be mean to people" provision? We already have laws in place against assault, harm, manslaughter, murder etc. which cover off all of the examples you have provided. If these laws are not being enforced, then that is something that needs to be looked at, not even more legislation to protect your ego.

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 1:00pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're damn right I hate attention-seekers, narcissists, and those with no concept of self-awareness.

"Oh I want to do something different, but don't want people to see/notice/comment; but I'll do it anyway, then complain when they do, so I'll do it even more in future and hope they'll change their mind".

So you hate somebody doing nothing to you. Then I can take it you are the person who would say something to a person you personally decided is an attention seeker.

What if it traditional dress from another country?

Why is your view so important that you decide what is or is not acceptable for people to wear without being hassled? This equates back to harassing women for what they are wearing. You are basically saying this is acceptable and you think it is right because they didn't listen to the harrasers.

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 1:07pm

Antares35 wrote: »

I'm going to ignore your accusation that I am ok with anyone being killed, and hope that it was a knee jerk reaction.

So, how doe we legislate against people having a go at you? Some kind of "don't be mean to people" provision? We already have laws in place against assault, harm, manslaughter, murder etc. which cover off all of the examples you have provided. If these laws are not being enforced, then that is something that needs to be looked at, not even more legislation to protect your ego.

No you take ownership of dismissing the reality that people have been killed for their clothes. Here you are again saying how this harassment is somehow unimportant. You are saying you are fine with harassment and threats of violence.

It is considered a hate crime in the UK. The other laws are there but hate crime was brought in because it leads to other criminal acts.

So in you view somebody being assaulted is the exact same as somebody being assaulted because of their race? The law doesn't see it that way and I believe rightly so. The addition in the UK to include social sub cultures is completely valid to me.

You are condoning harassment of people whether you acknowledge it or not.

the beer revolu · 21-11-2019 1:12pm

I had a handlebar moustache for 3 or 4 years and had a very different experience to the OP.
In my experience,most people loved it. It made them smile. People would regularly tell me how much they liked it. Older people, though, tended to not really like it - my mum in particular. I never had a stranger say anything negative about it.
Got rid of it around 5 years ago - they were starting to get a bit common.;)
That made my mother happy.

sbsquarepants · 21-11-2019 1:14pm

Jesus Ray are you always this melodramatic?

You aren't fighting some righteous battle against oppression, you just like to wear dodgy clothes and have a bit of a chip on your shoulder (or maybe its an epaulette? Are you feeling like Napoleon today or something?);)

Antares35 · 21-11-2019 1:19pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No you take ownership of dismissing the reality that people have been killed for their clothes. Here you are again saying how this harassment is somehow unimportant. You are saying you are fine with harassment and threats of violence.

It is considered a hate crime in the UK. The other laws are there but hate crime was brought in because it leads to other criminal acts.

So in you view somebody being assaulted is the exact same as somebody being assaulted because of their race? The law doesn't see it that way and I believe rightly so. The addition in the UK to include social sub cultures is completely valid to me.

You are condoning harassment of people whether you acknowledge it or not.

I'll thank you to stop accusing me of saying things I have not said

So, I will try again. We already have laws in place for violent crime, hate crime etc. If people are still experiencing violence (which for the record I do not and never have condoned) then clearly those laws are not being properly enforced. This is where the problem is. You suggested that we enact some kind of law to stop people from experiencing these attacks. I am simply pointing out that such laws already exist, and asking you what additional legislation you think we need. You haven't been able to answer that. By all means state that we need more laws - but be able to elaborate on your statement to explain what laws (additional to what we already have) they would be.

For the avoidance of doubt, lest you read in anything else to my posts, I do not condone violence towards anybody

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 1:54pm

Antares35 wrote: »

I'll thank you to stop accusing me of saying things I have not said

So, I will try again. We already have laws in place for violent crime, hate crime etc. If people are still experiencing violence (which for the record I do not and never have condoned) then clearly those laws are not being properly enforced. This is where the problem is. You suggested that we enact some kind of law to stop people from experiencing these attacks. I am simply pointing out that such laws already exist, and asking you what additional legislation you think we need. You haven't been able to answer that. By all means state that we need more laws - but be able to elaborate on your statement to explain what laws (additional to what we already have) they would be.

For the avoidance of doubt, lest you read in anything else to my posts, I do not condone violence towards anybody

I didn't accuse you of saying anything you didn't say. I commented on the ramifications of your attitude and what it means.

We do not in Ireland have this classed as hate crime so we dont have the laws in place here. It is not covered by laws here. We don't have hate crime laws here at all.

So you wring to say we have laws covering this.

Antares35 · 21-11-2019 2:12pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I didn't accuse you of saying anything you didn't say. I commented on the ramifications of your attitude and what it means.

We do not in Ireland have this classed as hate crime so we dont have the laws in place here. It is not covered by laws here. We don't have hate crime laws here at all.

So you wring to say we have laws covering this.

This is impressive verbal gymnastics Ray. You did tell me that I condone violence and that I am dismissive of hate crimes etc.

I said we have laws covering assault, manslaughter etc. That is a statement of fact.

What do you want classed as hate crime? I am seeking clarification.

21-11-2019 2:14pm

El Weirdo wrote: »

Has me dripping like a f*cked fridge, too.

Youd want to get that looked at

sbsquarepants · 21-11-2019 2:15pm

Antares35 wrote: »

What do you want classed as hate crime? I am seeking clarification.

The scourge of mustache mockery i think:)

Effects · 21-11-2019 3:09pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

We do not in Ireland have this classed as hate crime so we don't have the laws in place here. It is not covered by laws here.

I can just imagine how you'd get treated in the Garda Station, making a complaint because someone laughed at your moustache.

jimgoose · 21-11-2019 3:16pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The scourge of mustache mockery i think:)

There was a chap in the office here with an immaculately-styled twirly mustache, some of the lads nicknamed him Go Compare... :pac:

Ray, does it make any difference if someone is arrested and charged with assault if the motivation for said assault was robbery, verbal provocation or someone's clothing and/or mustache?

21-11-2019 3:20pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Why is your view so important that you decide what is or is not acceptable for people to wear without being hassled? This equates back to harassing women for what they are wearing. You are basically saying this is acceptable and you think it is right because they didn't listen to the harrasers.

Nowhere in my comments will you find sanction for harassing women.

However, we must accept a stark reality: that not everyone in society is civil and reasonable and unable to cause violence or harassment.

Knowing these people exist means that women must be responsible - accepting that these violent thugs exist and that, by drawing attention to themselves, they increase the risk that these thugs will attack.

It's the same with violent thugs generally. If you do something to attract their attention, whatever it is, you cannot be held entirely guiltless for what may happen to you. Often, swallowing pride and walking away is the far more responsible approach.

Same with what women wear. The woman who stands out most, will also stand out most to violent thugs.

It doesn't take much of a logical leap to suggest that perhaps women shouldn't stand out to these thugs if they want to entirely avoid their attention/behavior. The thug is responsible for their crimes, but the woman can do much to eschew their attention.

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 3:23pm

Effects wrote: »

I can just imagine how you'd get treated in the Garda Station, making a complaint because someone laughed at your moustache.

Pay attention. I did not say because somebody mocks a moustache but because they assault people and threaten them. I also didn't single out a moustache just mentioned it in passing as a thing people may comment on and if you don't accept it as they want they can be violent.

So it isn't the comment it is the intimidation with threats of violence that are the issue.

Funny how people are going out of there way to make up what I said to mock the points I am making yet a person saying they HATE people who wear what they consider outlandish. No condemnation for that but suggesting that people shouldn't be attacked is laughed at.

Must tell my friend who has to wear dentures because he had his teeth kicked in he was looking for trouble and it was his own fault. How about my friend who has a scar on his cheek from being cut with a Stanley knife because he was a "hippy" and was walking home?

Sure they should just laugh off these serious assaults.

the beer revolu · 21-11-2019 3:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the same with violent thugs generally. If you do something to attract their attention, whatever it is, you cannot be held entirely guiltless for what may happen to you.

Is that you, Mr. Hook?

So how much of the blame should the skimpily dressed woman take for her rape?

Effects · 21-11-2019 3:27pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Pay attention. I did not say because somebody mocks a moustache but because they assault people and threaten them.

I'm not paying enough attention because you're a boring troll.

You're the very person who said you assault people just because they don't like the way you dress.

I don't think you even dress that interestingly, it's all in your head.
You say you can't grow a beard yet can manage a handlebar moustache? I don't believe that either.

Antares35 · 21-11-2019 3:29pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Pay attention. I did not say because somebody mocks a moustache but because they assault people and threaten them. I also didn't single out a moustache just mentioned it in passing as a thing people may comment on and if you don't accept it as they want they can be violent.

So it isn't the comment it is the intimidation with threats of violence that are the issue.

Funny how people are going out of there way to make up what I said to mock the points I am making yet a person saying they HATE people who wear what they consider outlandish. No condemnation for that but suggesting that people shouldn't be attacked is laughed at.

Must tell my friend who has to wear dentures because he had his teeth kicked in he was looking for trouble and it was his own fault. How about my friend who has a scar on his cheek from being cut with a Stanley knife because he was a "hippy" and was walking home?

Sure they should just laugh off these serious assaults.

I think the point that some people are trying to get at is that we have laws in place against violence, assault etc. Nowhere does it say in Irish law that it is ok to slash someone with a Stanley knife or kick their teeth in, and nowhere on this thread, despite your allegations, has anyone condoned this type of behaviour. Assault is assault and is, rightly, illegal. I think the issue might be that we don't really know what you are getting at. Assault is already illegal - do you want to make it "more illegal" if people are assaulted because of what they wear or their facial hair? I was assaulted on the Luas several years ago. Simply because there was a shove and I asked the scobe behind me not to dig her elbows into me. That was enough for her to drag me off the tram by my hair and punch me square in the face. My glasses broke, but they took the impact at least. Was that less of an assault or less of a crime because it wasn't motivated by me wearing an emo outfit or a quirky moustache or dentures? I certainly wasn't less traumatised by it than any other assault victim

21-11-2019 3:34pm

the beer revolu wrote: »

Is that you, Mr. Hook?

So how much of the blame should the skimpily dressed woman take for her rape?

My approach is the same that we would accept in every other situation.

We don't walk down dark alleyways because we understand the risks involved.

If we decide to walk down the alleyway regardless, and get attacked, full responsibility goes to the person committing the crime.

However, how many of us would argue that people should walk down the dark alleyway regardless of the risk, because the criminal is responsible anyway?

It's exactly the same principle when it comes to other crimes in society. When we are aware of the risks of doing something, we should always opt to minimize those risks.

But that's not the same as exculpating the criminal, as he must always take full responsibility for the crime. However, it's up to us to reduce the likelihood of experiencing those crimes (not walking down that dark alleyway etc.).

sbsquarepants · 21-11-2019 3:40pm

So Ray, it's not just yourself but also your wider circle of friends who are subject to this relentless fashion based vigilantism?

Fúck me, that's almost as unfortunate as it is unlikely!

the beer revolu · 21-11-2019 3:42pm

Deleted User wrote: »

My approach is the same that we would accept in every other situation.

We don't walk down dark alleyways because we understand the risks involved.

If we decide to walk down the alleyway regardless, and get attacked, full responsibility goes to the person committing the crime.

However, how many of us would argue that people should walk down the dark alleyway regardless of the risk, because the criminal is responsible anyway?

It's exactly the same principle when it comes to other crimes in society. When we are aware of the risks of doing something, we should always opt to minimize those risks.

But that's not the same as exculpating the criminal, as he must always take full responsibility for the crime. However, it's up to us to reduce the likelihood of experiencing those crimes (not walking down that dark alleyway etc.).

Fair enough. Except that's not what you said.
What you said was:

If you do something to attract their attention, whatever it is, you cannot be held entirely guiltless for what may happen to you.

21-11-2019 3:46pm

the beer revolu wrote: »

Fair enough. Except that's not what you said.
What you said was:

Which is entirely accurate.

The problem with the sexual harassment question is that two entirely different things are conflated into one, namely guilt for the crime and guilt for increasing the risk of experiencing that crime.

They are entirely separate.

So, to take my example above, an individual is not responsible for being attacked down the alleyway, but he should take responsibility for his ill-judged decision to walk down that alleyway against all reasonable advice.

sbsquarepants · 21-11-2019 3:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

However, how many of us would argue that people should walk down the dark alleyway regardless of the risk, because the criminal is responsible anyway?

.

Away with you and your sense, there's just no place for that in todays world i'm afraid!

If you bring trouble on yourself, you really have to accept the fact that you invited the trouble you got and you possibly could have avoided it if you were a bit savier.

You should be able to leave your door open and have no one take your stuff, but you aren't - so the smart thing to do is lock it, maybe even get an alarm, just in case locking it isn't enough.

You should be able to get shít faced drunk and walk through town on your own at 4 am with your tits hanging out and a skirt that barely covers your arse without some dirt bird assaulting or robbing you - but you aren't, so the smart thing to do is keep your wits about you + get a taxi.

You should be able to dress like the historical character of your choice with added questionable facial hair and have no one comment.....do you see where this is going Ray?

Somehow I bet you don't!

Newsflash Ray - there are lots arseholes out there, from annoying ones to downright nasty dangerous ones. They aren't going to suddenly dissapear.

There are also arsehole magnets (like yourself)

No good ever comes from being an arsehole magnet!

Lewis_Benson · 21-11-2019 4:05pm

This has to be the 6th worst thread on boards......ever.

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 5:04pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nowhere in my comments will you find sanction for harassing women.

However, we must accept a stark reality: that not everyone in society is civil and reasonable and unable to cause violence or harassment.

Knowing these people exist means that women must be responsible - accepting that these violent thugs exist and that, by drawing attention to themselves, they increase the risk that these thugs will attack.

It's the same with violent thugs generally. If you do something to attract their attention, whatever it is, you cannot be held entirely guiltless for what may happen to you. Often, swallowing pride and walking away is the far more responsible approach.

Same with what women wear. The woman who stands out most, will also stand out most to violent thugs.

It doesn't take much of a logical leap to suggest that perhaps women shouldn't stand out to these thugs if they want to entirely avoid their attention/behavior. The thug is responsible for their crimes, but the woman can do much to eschew their attention.

I never said you sanctioned harassment of women I said that it equates to the same thing.

You have now sanctioned it now however and are victim blaming.

If said thug attacks somebody because they feel their clothing means they are gay to the thugs mind it is a homophobic attack. Doesn't matter if the person is gay or not because it is the cause of the action.

The same thing happens to manly dressed women perceived as lesbian.

Recently in London a lesbian couple were attacked for refusing to kiss for a group of lads. It started out as a joke by the lads but when the women refused they were beaten up. These "jokes" and "banter" all have the undercurrent of threats of violence. Don't react the way the harraser want and it becomes violent.

Effects · 21-11-2019 5:28pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

These "jokes" and "banter" all have the undercurrent of threats of violence. Don't react the way the harraser want and it becomes violent.

Except you say you prefer to just punch people in the face, before it escalates from slagging.

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 5:47pm

Effects wrote: »

Except you say you prefer to just punch people in the face, before it escalates from slagging.

No I didn't say that. I said I will punch some people straight away. Never really defined the difference of why I punch some straight away. Certainly never said it was my preference. My preference is mind you own business and keep your comments to yourself. If you insult a stranger don't expect them to say or do nothing.

Plenty of people pay me complements. When I am in the USA the responses are always positive and most of Europe is the same with the exception of the UK, Poland and of course Ireland.

jimgoose · 21-11-2019 5:52pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No I didn't say that. I said I will punch some people straight away. Never really defined the difference of why I punch some straight away. Certainly never said it was my preference. My preference is mind you own business and keep your comments to yourself. If you insult a stranger don't expect them to say or do nothing.

Plenty of people pay me complements. When I am in the USA the responses are always positive and most of Europe is the same with the exception of the UK, Poland and of course Ireland.

You'd make a magnificent superhero.

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 6:02pm

jimgoose wrote: »

You'd make a magnificent superhero.

Well I do have a cape but I would be more Rorschach than anything else

housetypeb · 21-11-2019 6:04pm

jimgoose wrote: »

You'd make a magnificent superhero.

The image of Yosemite Sam springs to mind for some reason,could be just the mustache and bad temper though.

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 6:22pm

housetypeb wrote: »

The image of Yosemite Sam springs to mind for some reason,could be just the mustache and bad temper though.

People really oppressing on the mention of a handlebar moustache. Generally it is pointy sideburns with a quiff

Effects · 21-11-2019 6:29pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Generally it is pointy sideburns with a quiff

Sure it is, yeah. You just keep changing up your style, sounds like you aren't really that comfortable with your fashion choices. Maybe that's why you think people are always looking and commenting on you.

21-11-2019 7:29pm

This might be unpopular, but there is absolutely no way I could be friends with someone with a handlebar moustache.

At the very minimum, it would just remind me of Joseph Stalin.

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 7:56pm

Effects wrote: »

Sure it is, yeah. You just keep changing up your style, sounds like you aren't really that comfortable with your fashion choices. Maybe that's why you think people are always looking and commenting on you.

No I haven't. Just because you can't comprehend doesn't change what I said.

EmmetSpiceland · 21-11-2019 8:14pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People really oppressing on the mention of a handlebar moustache. Generally it is pointy sideburns with a quiff

How long are these “pointy” sideburns? Are we taking the old Star Trek series or long mutton chop types?

Women do not like long sideburns on a man. Gives off the impression of “rollie” cigarettes and bad teeth.

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 8:41pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

How long are these “pointy” sideburns? Are we taking the old Star Trek series or long mutton chop types?

Women do not like long sideburns on a man. Gives off the impression of “rollie” cigarettes and bad teeth.

What difference does it make? I change about

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 8:47pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This might be unpopular, but there is absolutely no way I could be friends with someone with a handlebar moustache.

At the very minimum, it would just remind me of Joseph Stalin.

Why not Dali? Anyway you are proving the point you are judgemental about something that has no impact on you. To believe you confine this judgement is unlikely and probably the type of person I am talking about.

If a friend got scared and reminded you of Freddy Kruger would that stop the friendship?

EmmetSpiceland · 21-11-2019 9:34pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What difference does it make? I change about

Depends on what you’re after. But a man’s “side-locks” should never extend further than the top of the ear lobe.

Ray Palmer · 21-11-2019 10:49pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Depends on what you’re after. But a man’s “side-locks” should never extend further than the top of the ear lobe.

Says you

EmmetSpiceland · 21-11-2019 10:58pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Says you

The ladies don’t like those awful long sideburns. Just giving you a “heads up”.

Andreas77 · 21-11-2019 11:10pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

The ladies don’t like those awful long sideburns. Just giving you a “heads up”.

Too true, he got it in one. I had sideburns when I was 18, very curly and long for combing. During this time I was not approached by a female, how curious emmet, did you observe me (he was also right about the rolling papers):pac:

Deebles McBeebles · 22-11-2019 12:52am

Deleted User wrote: »

This might be unpopular, but there is absolutely no way I could be friends with someone with a handlebar moustache.

At the very minimum, it would just remind me of Joseph Stalin.

That is odd for many reasons. Mainly because it made me think about Joseph Stalin's Friends. Which is the title of the screenplay I'll be writing in coffee shops for the next few months. I'll probably just replace Joey with Joseph, to be honest.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Why not Dali?

A fine moustache. It was a show of his creativity, right there on his f*cking face.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If a friend got scared and reminded you of Freddy Kruger would that stop the friendship?

Ray, what does that sentence mean? When have you seen Freddy Krueger scared? Even when he fought Jason, fear was never shown. I would never end a friendship with Freddy.

Andreas77 wrote: »

Too true, he got it in one. I had sideburns when I was 18, very curly and long for combing. During this time I was not approached by a female, how curious emmet, did you observe me (he was also right about the rolling papers):pac:

Andreas, please, where is that accent from?

Shady Grady · 22-11-2019 1:14am

Andreas77 wrote: »

Too true, he got it in one. I had sideburns when I was 18, very curly and long for combing. During this time I was not approached by a female, how curious emmet, did you observe me (he was also right about the rolling papers):pac:

Nah brother, if you want to rock the burns ya keep them trimmed not curly and resembling some sort of jungle growth.

jimgoose · 22-11-2019 7:57am

Eeee, t'booger-grips laaahk!

sbsquarepants · 22-11-2019 9:40am

housetypeb wrote: »

The image of Yosemite Sam springs to mind for some reason,could be just the mustache and bad temper though.

That's exactly who i was picturing too.

Do you ever dress cowboy style Ray?

s7ryf3925pivug · 22-11-2019 9:46am

Regarding a silly appearance, I'd be more inclined to make fun of you behind your back. Just because it's fun, not because I care. Me I wear slightly different versions of the same few combinations of clothes all the time. Plenty of room to make fun there I guess. Don't care, knock yourself out.

"Unimaginative dresser", I imagine you saying. "What does he think he is, a Gap ad?" "So boringly classic and conventionally handsome."

Though actually I favour Banana Republic over Gap, so more fool you.

What difference does it make to you?

Comments