Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's difficult to respond to some of these posts, without knowing the age of the poster, and whether they actually lived through the period. By some of the statements, it seems as though some are younger folks repeating the revisionist history of what they've read in Rolling Stone Magazine.
We probably should limit participation on threads on the History forum to only people who've lived through the era being discussed. Though it might be tough to find people who rememember the Civil War.
Oh? No historians allowed to post in history? Only people who've lived through the periods in question?
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Yes, discussion in World War I threads will henceforth only be allowed by the few random hundred-year-olds still alive and posting on CityData.
Otherwise we will just get a bunch of young whipper snappers regurgitating the history they read in Rolling Stone magazine's "Rockin' World War I Special Edition - Featuring the Top 500 Battles"...
Yes, discussion in World War I threads from henceforth will only be allowed by the few random hundred year olds still alive and posting on CityData. Otherwise we will just get a bunch of young whipper snappers regurgitating the history they read in Rolling Stone magazine's "Rockin' World War I Special Edition - Featuring the Top 500 Battles"...
Where do we show our ID to prove we're qualified to post on a given thread? Is it electronic?
And why do I get the feeling that only people who disagree with a certain poster's opinions are the ones who need to provide proof of age-qualification?
Cicero, your opening statement is lacking a bit of the usual flair. Are you ok today? Did you water down your wine to much? Perhaps Cato should substitute for your side?
(I dunno, I'm just riffing some, see what comes of it.)
Aren't togas kind of naturally sloppy? Don't they sort of sag and billow around?
I don't know how anyone could think the Beatles were sloppy. So many of their photos show them wearing suits and ties, even in the recording room sometimes, and then there were those Nehru suits and collarless suits. Very spiffy. I think to the contrary, they were fashion trend-setters in the best sense. They had the money to buy the best.
Having been only 2 years old when the Beatles invaded I may not be qualified to comment but some questions come to mind:
Was the era of sloppiness brought on by certain individuals or was it the inevitable result of postwar prosperity? I assume the biggest reason people dressed well in public the '30s was to show that they were not destitute, but by the end of the '60s nobody cared about that.
Will the era of sloppiness ever end? Why hasn't there been a backlash against it yet? Is dressing well now so strongly connected with being gay that straight men take refuge in sloppiness?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
