Paul Secular wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Yes, you sure do. Please explain why '62 is some magical cut-off point
> > Paul.
> > Other than the Feld (Bolan) article appearing. It is probably safe to
> > say that
> > he was dressing that way in '61 or '60 even....shall we back date even
> > further?
> > What happened in '62 Paul? Was there a particularly vicious commercial
> > Shirelles record released? And as someone else pointed out, you seem to
> >
> >
> > dress more '66 than '61....you were very proud of your simulated
> > Marriott centerpart backcomb
> > as I recall. By your standards, this would be the epitome of
> > commercialized sell-out period mod.
>
> You're just being stupid! You don't have to agree with me - but if you
> really don't even *understand* what I'm talking about then I can't be
> bothered with you!
>
> Even Julian added a comment along the lines of 'isn't that everyone's
> view anyway'.... (obviously not Julian..)
>
> - Paul
Oh, I'M being stupid huh? I noticed how you completely sidestepped my
question asking you to briefly explain Existentialism for me....and how
does that
compare with your Christianity analogy. Could it be the emperor has no
clothes? (...figuratively of course, we all know what a sharp lad you
are...how is the
man-bag by the way?)
Dan
____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
