If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1321
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
"Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Steve House" wrote in message ... Similarly further expanding the law to now include same sex couples is exactly the same process. Contrary to the desires of social conservatives to live in the never-existant mythological land portrayed by Norman Rockwell, society evolves. We can learn to recognize when traditional values perpetuate injustice and can take steps to redefine the formal matrix of society in order to correct them. Laws that include same-sex marriage on an equal footing with opposite sex marriage in every respect reflect social institutions evolving to be more inclusive and humane. Societies that do not continue to evolve, die out. chuckle "Die out," indeed. What do you suppose would happen to any society in which all "marriages" were same-sex? Are you saying that procreation can only occur in a marriage? Hardly. Are you saying that illegitimacy would still be as much of a problem in a completely homosexual society? How would that work, exactly? Parthenogenesis? Did I ever say illegitimacy is a problem, in a procreational context? You didn't. I acknowledged that it is. Why do you think is it a problem, anyway?. Nearly 40% of children born in the U.S. today are born out of wedlock. Among blacks, it's over 70%. If you don't see that as a problem you just aren't paying attention. I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself, decrease our population. It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for millennia. Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look for opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up? How noble and patriotic of them if they did, but the likelihood is vanishingly small. Married people who look for sex outside of that institution are generally just interested in the sex, not boosting the population, and homosexuals for the most part have little if any interest in the opposite sex. There are many other ways do to that. Wars, disease, etc. Wars usually do not depopulate countries in any meaningful sort of way. Low national birthrates do. In virtually all European countries today (I think Greece is an exception, and perhaps Albania if you consider that European) the birthrate is below subsistence level, i.e. too low to maintain the population. It's a major reason for the continuing influx of non-Europeans. |
#1322
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
On Sat, 15 May 2010 22:54:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Steve House" wrote in message ... Similarly further expanding the law to now include same sex couples is exactly the same process. Contrary to the desires of social conservatives to live in the never-existant mythological land portrayed by Norman Rockwell, society evolves. We can learn to recognize when traditional values perpetuate injustice and can take steps to redefine the formal matrix of society in order to correct them. Laws that include same-sex marriage on an equal footing with opposite sex marriage in every respect reflect social institutions evolving to be more inclusive and humane. Societies that do not continue to evolve, die out. chuckle "Die out," indeed. What do you suppose would happen to any society in which all "marriages" were same-sex? Are you saying that procreation can only occur in a marriage? Hardly. Are you saying that illegitimacy would still be as much of a problem in a completely homosexual society? How would that work, exactly? Parthenogenesis? Did I ever say illegitimacy is a problem, in a procreational context? You didn't. I acknowledged that it is. Why do you think is it a problem, anyway?. Nearly 40% of children born in the U.S. today are born out of wedlock. Among blacks, it's over 70%. If you don't see that as a problem you just aren't paying attention. I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself, decrease our population. It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for millennia. Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look for opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up? How noble and patriotic of them if they did, but the likelihood is vanishingly small. Married people who look for sex outside of that institution are generally just interested in the sex, not boosting the population, and homosexuals for the most part have little if any interest in the opposite sex. There are many other ways do to that. Wars, disease, etc. Wars usually do not depopulate countries in any meaningful sort of way. Low national birthrates do. In virtually all European countries today (I think Greece is an exception, and perhaps Albania if you consider that European) the birthrate is below subsistence level, i.e. too low to maintain the population. It's a major reason for the continuing influx of non-Europeans. You're worried about population decrease on the planet? There were 5 billion people on the planet just 30 years ago. Today there's over 7 billion people and that rate is increasing exponentially. Every last problem we face today is due to overpopulation of the earth. Homosexual marriage will only help the survival of the species by bringing numbers down that are more in balance with available natural resources. If not then nature will have to devise another way to reduce reproduction rates in ignorant and selfishly overbreeding heterosexuals, by making heterosexuals either sterile, or more preferably dead. ****, are you ever living in the 12th century. I bet you still light your lamps with seal and whale oil. |
#1323
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
In message , Neil
Harrington writes "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Steve House" wrote in message ... I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself, decrease our population. It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for millennia. There is no such thing as a "conventional Marriage" as you describe it. For several millennia as I showed with some 20+ references (and it was only 20 because I though that would be enough and could not be bothered to do any more) some days (weeks?) ago is two *OR MORE* people of one or more sexes in some sort of union. There have been same sex and multiple (same or mixed sex) partner marriages for as long as history has been recorded. One man to one woman whilst the most common form of marriage (not counting the serial marriage/divorce/marriage/ divorcee) cycle) Same sex and multiple partner marriages/unions are not and never have been uncommon in almost every society. It is YOU, Neil, who are artificially restricting what marriage is by equivocation and ignoring any evidence you don't like. Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look for opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up? Not "just to keep the population up" but certainly to have children. It is quite common for Lesbian couples to have children either by artificial insemination or "one night stands". It is more problematical for Gays to have children where one is the natural father as this requires a female to give birth and therefore giving legal complications. However many Gays do adopt children, some technically have female partners (often lesbians) for a while to get children. On the other hand permitting Gay marriage is going to have a ZERO effect on the population. Gay "marriages" or certainly civil unions and informal partnerships are de facto now and permitting formal gay marriages will change nothing as regards the population. How noble and patriotic of them if they did, What has patriotic go to do with it? You do have to remember that Neil lives in a fantasy world. Last week he told some one who was at a NATO meeting that both the meeting did not happen and that the Neil know more about the technology than some on who had documentary evidence he was there (and Neil was not) and had multiple independent and evidence to back him up... but Neil knew better. Despite not being involved at all but having read a couple of books. Neil also ignored the large number of references I found for same sex marriages across the world spanning some 5,000 years. It is hardly worth arguing with him until he gets his medication sorted out and he comes back to the real world. What with Harrington and PAilin I am beginning to think Alaska is one large asylum where the USA puts the real lunatics. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#1324
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
In message , Phil H Armonick
writes On Sat, 15 May 2010 22:54:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Steve House" wrote in message ... Similarly further expanding the law to now include same sex couples is exactly the same process. Contrary to the desires of social conservatives to live in the never-existant mythological land portrayed by Norman Rockwell, society evolves. We can learn to recognize when traditional values perpetuate injustice and can take steps to redefine the formal matrix of society in order to correct them. Laws that include same-sex marriage on an equal footing with opposite sex marriage in every respect reflect social institutions evolving to be more inclusive and humane. Societies that do not continue to evolve, die out. chuckle "Die out," indeed. What do you suppose would happen to any society in which all "marriages" were same-sex? Are you saying that procreation can only occur in a marriage? Hardly. Are you saying that illegitimacy would still be as much of a problem in a completely homosexual society? How would that work, exactly? Parthenogenesis? Did I ever say illegitimacy is a problem, in a procreational context? You didn't. I acknowledged that it is. Why do you think is it a problem, anyway?. Nearly 40% of children born in the U.S. today are born out of wedlock. Among blacks, it's over 70%. If you don't see that as a problem you just aren't paying attention. I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself, decrease our population. It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for millennia. Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look for opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up? How noble and patriotic of them if they did, but the likelihood is vanishingly small. Married people who look for sex outside of that institution are generally just interested in the sex, not boosting the population, and homosexuals for the most part have little if any interest in the opposite sex. There are many other ways do to that. Wars, disease, etc. Wars usually do not depopulate countries in any meaningful sort of way. Low national birthrates do. In virtually all European countries today (I think Greece is an exception, and perhaps Albania if you consider that European) the birthrate is below subsistence level, i.e. too low to maintain the population. It's a major reason for the continuing influx of non-Europeans. You're worried about population decrease on the planet? There were 5 billion people on the planet just 30 years ago. Today there's over 7 billion people and that rate is increasing exponentially. Every last problem we face today is due to overpopulation of the earth. Homosexual marriage will only help the survival of the species by bringing numbers down that are more in balance with available natural resources. If not then nature will have to devise another way to reduce reproduction rates in ignorant and selfishly overbreeding heterosexuals, by making heterosexuals either sterile, or more preferably dead. ****, are you ever living in the 12th century. I bet you still light your lamps with seal and whale oil. You do have to remember that Neil lives in a fantasy world. Last week he told some one who was at a NATO meeting that both the meeting did not happen and that the Neil know more about the technology than some on who had published documentary evidence he was there (and Neil was not) and had multiple independent and evidence to back him up... but Neil knew better. Despite not being involved at all but having read a couple of books. Neil also ignored the large number of references I found for same sex marriages across the world spanning some 5,000 years. It is hardly worth arguing with him until he gets his medication sorted out and he comes back to the real world. What with Harrington and Palin I am beginning to think Alaska is one large asylum where the USA puts the real lunatics. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#1325
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:45:47 +0100, Chris H wrote:
What with Harrington and Palin I am beginning to think Alaska is one large asylum where the USA puts the real lunatics. If only that were true. The USA tends to spread them out equally amongst all the states. This gives everyone the false perception that this level of mental illness is "the norm". The number of Alaskan representatives only making it more visible on the news due to the severity of their illness. Floridians are next on the list of highest-per-capita of mentally deranged. Partially due to how many who are senile that migrate to a warmer climate to retire there (during their pre-senility phase). Driving in Florida is an interesting experience. If you don't spot at least 3-5 motor vehicles per day parked on sidewalks, medians, and other areas clearly delineated as greenery; because someone who is senile doesn't even know how they got there; then consider yourself lucky. The rate of this occurrence increasing with the amount of rainfall. For some bizarre reason Floridians do not cope well with rainfall and motor vehicles. During any rain you will find an accident at every 3rd intersection. Surprisingly too, the rate of accidents on perfectly straight roads with no hills nor valleys (as mild as they are everywhere in FL), during rainfall is even higher than that on roads riddled with intersections. Perhaps the old and senile fall asleep from their medication while driving on a boring straight and intersectionless roads. I strongly suspect that Neil has had his own share of "how did my car get here?" experiences for the last few years, no matter what state of the USA he lives in. It would fit (justify) all his other words. |
#1326
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
"Phil H Armonick" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 May 2010 22:54:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Steve House" wrote in message ... Similarly further expanding the law to now include same sex couples is exactly the same process. Contrary to the desires of social conservatives to live in the never-existant mythological land portrayed by Norman Rockwell, society evolves. We can learn to recognize when traditional values perpetuate injustice and can take steps to redefine the formal matrix of society in order to correct them. Laws that include same-sex marriage on an equal footing with opposite sex marriage in every respect reflect social institutions evolving to be more inclusive and humane. Societies that do not continue to evolve, die out. chuckle "Die out," indeed. What do you suppose would happen to any society in which all "marriages" were same-sex? Are you saying that procreation can only occur in a marriage? Hardly. Are you saying that illegitimacy would still be as much of a problem in a completely homosexual society? How would that work, exactly? Parthenogenesis? Did I ever say illegitimacy is a problem, in a procreational context? You didn't. I acknowledged that it is. Why do you think is it a problem, anyway?. Nearly 40% of children born in the U.S. today are born out of wedlock. Among blacks, it's over 70%. If you don't see that as a problem you just aren't paying attention. I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself, decrease our population. It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for millennia. Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look for opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up? How noble and patriotic of them if they did, but the likelihood is vanishingly small. Married people who look for sex outside of that institution are generally just interested in the sex, not boosting the population, and homosexuals for the most part have little if any interest in the opposite sex. There are many other ways do to that. Wars, disease, etc. Wars usually do not depopulate countries in any meaningful sort of way. Low national birthrates do. In virtually all European countries today (I think Greece is an exception, and perhaps Albania if you consider that European) the birthrate is below subsistence level, i.e. too low to maintain the population. It's a major reason for the continuing influx of non-Europeans. You're worried about population decrease on the planet? Hardly! There were 5 billion people on the planet just 30 years ago. Today there's over 7 billion people and that rate is increasing exponentially. Exactly. It is encouraging to see you stumble into an actual, correct observation, however accidentally. I suppose this is yet another example of the old saying, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." Every last problem we face today is due to overpopulation of the earth. Well, no. Overpopulation is a severe and growing problem, but hardly the cause of "every last problem we face today." Homosexual marriage will only help the survival of the species by bringing numbers down that are more in balance with available natural resources. guffaw! "Homosexual marriage" (by which you mean same-sex marriage, I presume) would do THAT? I'd be all for it if that were the case. It isn't. Remember that 7 billion you were just complaining about? They aren't here in the U.S., or Canada, or Europe. Europeans as I've already mentioned are gradually dying out, as far as western culture is concerned. Their birth rate is already too low to sustain their population numbers. And they are NOT a significant part of the overpopulation problem. Where is the exponential population growth occurring? Mostly in the third world, in Asia and Africa. Here in the western hemisphere, in countries such as the almost-all-African Haiti, where girls typically become sexually active by age 12 and on average have about four children. This is why Haiti's population has exploded to 10 million, an increase of about three million in just the last decade. If not then nature will have to devise another way to reduce reproduction rates in ignorant and selfishly overbreeding heterosexuals, by making heterosexuals either sterile, or more preferably dead. Oh, so you're a Mother Nature worshipper. Well, maybe you ought to pray to the old slattern to get started on Haiti and do something about all those "selfishly overbreeding heterosexuals" there, because she seems to have fallen down on the job. Meanwhile, think about how you're going to adapt to the increasing Islamicization of the west. THEY don't brook any such nonsense as same-sex "marriage" you know, and may cut your head off just for mentioning the idea. And unlike us of western culture, their populations are steadily and rapidly increasing. Better prepare to explain yourself to your neighborhood mullah. Don't forget to touch the carpet with your forehead when you kneel and bow down (WAY down is the rule). |
#1327
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:06:19 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: Remember that 7 billion you were just complaining about? They aren't here in the U.S., or Canada, or Europe. Europeans as I've already mentioned are gradually dying out, as far as western culture is concerned. Their birth rate is already too low to sustain their population numbers. And they are NOT a significant part of the overpopulation problem. OH! I get it! You're a racist bigot ****head born from some ignorant ****! Now it all makes sense. |
#1328
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
On Sun, 16 May 2010 05:18:39 -0500, Phil H Armonick
wrote: Driving in Florida is an interesting experience. If you don't spot at least 3-5 motor vehicles per day parked on sidewalks, medians, and other areas clearly delineated as greenery; because someone who is senile doesn't even know how they got there; then consider yourself lucky. The rate of this occurrence increasing with the amount of rainfall. For some bizarre reason Floridians do not cope well with rainfall and motor vehicles. During any rain you will find an accident at every 3rd intersection. Surprisingly too, the rate of accidents on perfectly straight roads with no hills nor valleys (as mild as they are everywhere in FL), during rainfall is even higher than that on roads riddled with intersections. Perhaps the old and senile fall asleep from their medication while driving on a boring straight and intersectionless roads. Where is this "Florida" of which you speak? I've lived in two midwestern states and in Florida for over 30 years. Florida drivers, on-average, are no better or worse than drivers from other states. Driving in the Miami area is a frightening and dangerous experience. Road rage is common, and often results in gunfire. Driving in southwest Florida is frustrating, but it's the northern tourists who are the problem. Tampa and Jacksonville drive the drivers up the wall, but that's because the road system was planned by drunken monkeys. Many accidents happen in the rain, but that's because rain is frequent and unexpected during certain times of the year. Older drivers in cities like St Petersburg and around The Villages can be a problem, but a less dangerous problem than young crotch rocket motorcyclists. I've traveled around the US extensively on business and rate Boston drivers as the absolute worst in the US. Entering a rotary in Boston is akin to driving a bumper car in a kamikaze pilot training school. Driving anywhere in Washington DC is difficult since no one knows where they are going or how to get there because of the way the streets veer off. Los Angeles isn't bad if you stay off the freeways, but you can't get off the freeways once you are on them. Some Floridians may park on sidewalks, but in Baltimore and Philadelphia drivers unable to park simply abandon their cars in the middle of a busy street when they go to some store to do business. NYC expressways can be hazardous, but that's because you have to weave around disabled vehicles being stripped by vandals. Then there's the cab drivers who stop to let their goats graze in the median or get distracted by a chicken flopping around the front seat. Chicago's OK if you avoid Lake Shore Drive and the Dan Ryan, but the smaller streets can be a problem if everyone is moving their cars at the same time from the snow removal side to the other side. This can be just as serious a problem in August as it is in February because the parking rules stay in effect. While Boston may have the worst drivers when they're home, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and all of Canada send their worst drivers to Florida in huge RVs to clog our highways. That wreck you saw was caused by some motorist who finally got tired of following an RV going 40 in a 55 zone on a two-lane road for 27 miles and finally zoomed out in a no passing zone. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#1329
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris H" Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 5:44 AM Subject: a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix) In message , Neil Harrington writes "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Steve House" wrote in message ... I was simply pointing out that homosexual marriage will not, by itself, decrease our population. It would if it became a standard, as conventional marriage has been for millennia. There is no such thing as a "conventional Marriage" as you describe it. Eh? What color is the sky on your world? For several millennia as I showed with some 20+ references (and it was only 20 because I though that would be enough and could not be bothered I did read the first two or three of your "references" and found them essentially worthless. You seem to believe that lacking a SINGLE GOOD reference to support your position, you can make up for the lack by throwing in 20 junk ones. That does not work. to do any more) some days (weeks?) ago is two *OR MORE* people of one or more sexes in some sort of union. There have been same sex and multiple (same or mixed sex) partner marriages for as long as history has been recorded. One man to one woman whilst the most common form of marriage (not counting the serial marriage/divorce/marriage/ divorcee) cycle) Same sex and multiple partner marriages/unions are not and never have been uncommon in almost every society. Then you should have not the slightest trouble in supplying a SINGLE GOOD reference in English showing this to be true. Yet evidently you cannot. I asked you to and got no reply at all. I am neither interested in nor impressed by the rantings of some pot-smoking dingbats or Laputian academics no one has ever heard of. Just show me something in English about any historical same-sex "marriage" among English-speaking peoples anywhere, at any time, written by an established author that people have actually heard of. By all means include works of fiction, if you like. Anything in the writings of Dickens, Thackeray, Hardy, Swift, Marlowe or Shakespeare? If as you claim same-sex marriages "are not and never have been uncommon in almost every society," then surely among all those millions of words there must be some reference to it showing it as a common practice. Please do not continue to try to muddy the issue by bringing in "multiple partner marriages/unions" blah blah blah. There is no question whatever about men having multiple wives in various cultures -- everyone knows this and no one disputes it. That has nothing to do with your claims about same-sex marriage, which is the ONLY issue we're discussing here. It is YOU, Neil, who are artificially restricting what marriage is by equivocation and ignoring any evidence you don't like. Do you really believe homosexuals who "marry" would then look for opposite-sex illicit sex partners just to keep the population up? Not "just to keep the population up" but certainly to have children. It is quite common for Lesbian couples to have children either by artificial insemination or "one night stands". I doubt it. There are a lot of celebrity lesbians and I haven't heard of any one of them actually giving birth. They always seem to acquire "their" children by adoption. It is more problematical for Gays to have children where one is the natural father as this requires a female to give birth and therefore giving legal complications. However many Gays do adopt children, some technically have female partners (often lesbians) for a while to get children. On the other hand permitting Gay marriage is going to have a ZERO effect on the population. Gay "marriages" or certainly civil unions and informal partnerships are de facto now and permitting formal gay marriages will change nothing as regards the population. Yes. Most homosexuals don't produce children, excepting of course those who become homosexual later in life and who already have had children. There are quite a few of those -- which rather upsets the popular homosexual claim that the sexual preference is something you're "born with" and "can't be changed." How noble and patriotic of them if they did, What has patriotic go to do with it? The idea of keeping their country's birth rate up. As I mentioned, that's a continuing problem in almost all of Europe. You do have to remember that Neil lives in a fantasy world. Last week he told some one who was at a NATO meeting that both the meeting did not happen and that the Neil know more about the technology than some on who had documentary evidence he was there (and Neil was not) and had multiple independent and evidence to back him up... but Neil knew better. Despite not being involved at all but having read a couple of books. What on earth are you talking about? What NATO meeting? Before yesterday I hadn't even visited this NG for a week. Neil also ignored the large number of references I found for same sex marriages across the world spanning some 5,000 years. It is hardly Again: As I recall them (which admittedly is dimly) your "references" were worthless. A "large number" of worthless references is still worthless. It's like multiplying by zero, you see. worth arguing with him until he gets his medication sorted out and he comes back to the real world. What with Harrington and PAilin I am beginning to think Alaska is one large asylum where the USA puts the real lunatics. What has Alaska to do with anything? This is beyond your usual fuzzy thinking, Chris. You're becoming really rather weird. Maybe "one large asylum" is something you should be looking into, at that. |
#1330
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:22:18 -0400, tony cooper
wrote: Older drivers in cities like St Petersburg and around The Villages can be a problem, but a less dangerous problem than young crotch rocket motorcyclists. There's no such thing as "young crotch rocket motorcyclists" in Florida. Every last person I saw on a motorcycle in Florida looked to be well over 65 years old. I suspect that's where bikers go to die because they can ride there year-round until they do. Funniest thing in the world is to see a large group of bikers in the distance, you think it's a bunch of rugged guys with their trophy-bitches on back. Then as they get near there's nothing but gray and white beards and hair flying, or bald glinting in the sun. Some with their canes strapped to the sides of their bikes (no lie). I laughed the first few times I saw this, then it became just an ordinary grin-worthy spectacle. More power to 'em, I guess! But I'd rather die on some precarious mountain-pass before that age on a bike. Seeing that spectacle is like seeing someone's great-grandmother trying to wear a thong or string-bikini. There's just some things you shouldn't do out in public after a certain age. Riding motorcycles and trying to look young and macho is one of them. Then too they probably shouldn't even bother wearing leathers. There's not a whole lot of difference between where their leather vests end and their arms and necks start. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dog portrait | Cynicor[_6_] | Digital Photography | 9 | January 16th 09 02:07 PM |
Portrait Pro now Mac/PC | David Kilpatrick | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | July 25th 08 01:41 PM |
Portrait with 5D + 135 mm f/2 | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 20 | January 11th 07 05:00 PM |
portrait | walt mesk | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | December 20th 04 02:55 PM |