M
killermike wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:02:15 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>
> > Nathan did a TT this morning. Back at the HQ, Nathan, Vernon & I were
> > chatting to another rider. Facing me, and behind Vernon was another rider,
> > getting changed in the main hall (not the loos). Put it this way, when he
> > was getting changed out of his shorts, it was *clear* and *obvious* he'd
>
> In our society, the convention is that people have to wear clothes. Some
> bits of the body are considered 'rude'. Some people would argue that these
> standards are ridiculous (including but not limited to nudists and
> naturists, for example). If he's a grown man, I think that he should have
> obeyed convention in this case. His 'freedom' to walk around naked in
> public might conflict with other people's 'freedom' to hold adult nudity
> with a special regard.
If the person in question had been parading his nudity in public you
might find more support for your assertion. Since he wasn't, your
point is just another load of bollox that some people might prefer was
veiled from public view. Whilst I agree with your point about
convention I think it worth emphasising who you believe (or know)
considers nudity to be "rude" (and perhaps what you mesn by rude)
rather than running it straight off the back of the first assertion as
if it is also conventionally acepted that nudity is inherently rude (or
sexual, since I would guess this is what you meant)
> Unfortunately, in this case, I think that you are going to encounter a lot
> of 'Guardian Reader' style sophisticates who will attempt to brow-beat you
> by trying to assure you that you are not as mature or sophisticated as they
> are. They've seen it all before and would barely raise an eye brow (or
> anything else) in the same situation.
Is a "guardian reading sophisticate" related somehow to a dialy mail
reading crypto-facist (even if only by marriage). Is it a similar
relationship between an inadvertent slip of the towel and "walking
around naked in public" (whatever you meant bythat exactly) I think we
should be told.
> Isn't it interesting that the most well know allegorical children's fable
> about brow-beating is actually The Emperor's New Clothes?
the clue is in the adjective "allegorical". It wasn't actually /about/
nudity...
best wishes
james
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:02:15 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>
> > Nathan did a TT this morning. Back at the HQ, Nathan, Vernon & I were
> > chatting to another rider. Facing me, and behind Vernon was another rider,
> > getting changed in the main hall (not the loos). Put it this way, when he
> > was getting changed out of his shorts, it was *clear* and *obvious* he'd
>
> In our society, the convention is that people have to wear clothes. Some
> bits of the body are considered 'rude'. Some people would argue that these
> standards are ridiculous (including but not limited to nudists and
> naturists, for example). If he's a grown man, I think that he should have
> obeyed convention in this case. His 'freedom' to walk around naked in
> public might conflict with other people's 'freedom' to hold adult nudity
> with a special regard.
If the person in question had been parading his nudity in public you
might find more support for your assertion. Since he wasn't, your
point is just another load of bollox that some people might prefer was
veiled from public view. Whilst I agree with your point about
convention I think it worth emphasising who you believe (or know)
considers nudity to be "rude" (and perhaps what you mesn by rude)
rather than running it straight off the back of the first assertion as
if it is also conventionally acepted that nudity is inherently rude (or
sexual, since I would guess this is what you meant)
> Unfortunately, in this case, I think that you are going to encounter a lot
> of 'Guardian Reader' style sophisticates who will attempt to brow-beat you
> by trying to assure you that you are not as mature or sophisticated as they
> are. They've seen it all before and would barely raise an eye brow (or
> anything else) in the same situation.
Is a "guardian reading sophisticate" related somehow to a dialy mail
reading crypto-facist (even if only by marriage). Is it a similar
relationship between an inadvertent slip of the towel and "walking
around naked in public" (whatever you meant bythat exactly) I think we
should be told.
> Isn't it interesting that the most well know allegorical children's fable
> about brow-beating is actually The Emperor's New Clothes?
the clue is in the adjective "allegorical". It wasn't actually /about/
nudity...
best wishes
james