For your enjoyment - 1965 Copy of "For the Strength of

Post by **_dartagnan** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:44 pm

Well I notice everyone in the pictures are "white and delightsome," and that is half the battle.

Post by **_Great Cthulhu** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:48 pm

Fortigurn wrote:I'll post some more when I think of them. I recommend reading some HP Lovecraft to get you going.

An excellent recommendation. Give us one with the word "cyclopean" if you can.

Post by **_Blixa** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:50 pm

What, you think I get Marc Jacob's discounts?

Honey, the best I can do is take you shopping at the TriBeCa Century 21. Hey, it helped me build my Dries van Noten collection (though an internet friendship with whacked-out former model accounts for some Dries footwear gifts). Word to the wise: eBay. Vintage Yohji and Jil Sander shoes.

I love the internets. Its not just fingertip shopping depredations, it put me in touch with my exmo babysitter, an exmo LA fashion photographer (one of my now best friends who used to live in NYC with Candy Darling) who used his frequent flyer miles to take me all over the globe for collaborative writing projects, its also essential to my much more "serious" life as an actual tenured academic. With an academic specialty in marxist theory. [/b]

Post by **_Coggins7** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:40 pm

And posts like this one are contributing to serious, civil debate how . . . ?

NO, it is not. This thread isn't intellectually serious and it isn't positing any serious claims about anything. Its just another exercise in, as I pointed out, smarmy bigotry against a targeted group.

So why should I be serious when I can have so much fun pushing buttons?

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:41 pm

Coggins7 wrote:
And posts like this one are contributing to serious, civil debate how . . . ?

NO, it is not. This thread isn't intellectually serious and it isn't positing any serious claims about anything. Its just another exercise in, as I pointed out, smarmy bigotry against a targeted group.

So why should I be serious when I can have so much fun pushing buttons?

"isn't intellectually serious"? According to what standard? The Church's? Yours?

Post by **_Coggins7** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:53 pm

Name your poison.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:22 pm

Coggins7 wrote:Name your poison.

What are you talking about, Gomer? I asked you to clarify what you mean by "serious", and even offered up you and the Church as measuring sticks. Are you claiming that those things are "poison"?

Edited to add:

Coggins, I have a huge favor to ask you. Would you (or could Shades do this for you?) please start using the following image for your avatar?

I would greatly appreciate you doing this for me. Thanks.

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:29 pm

Great Cthulhu wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:I'll post some more when I think of them. I recommend reading some HP Lovecraft to get you going.

An excellent recommendation. Give us one with the word "cyclopean" if you can.

And who could forget those other great words:

* eldritch

* non-Euclidean

* batrachian

* rugose

* squamous

Post by **_Blixa** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:32 pm

What's so bigoted about nostalgia?

Last time I was in SLC I found a box of my old Children's Friend and I had a lovely time rambling through them. Sure, I don't believe any of the religious stuff in them, but it was still fun to look at the kind of illustrations they once used and remember what my first take on some of the articles were. And it was fascinating to compare them with later versions and contemporary Mormon publications. They were, I think now, pretty benign compared to more recent iterations.

And the same goes for revisiting this old pamphlet. A censure of "spaghetti straps," provincial and odd as that terminology is, has nothing on the one-hole-per-ear rule.

I parted ways with the One True Church on the cusp of the Correlation Committee: I think that one development accounts for the difference I see between the church now and then. I'm interested in filling in the history, if only for reasons of personal history and nostalgia.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:32 am

What's so bigoted about nostalgia?

Last time I was in SLC I found a box of my old Children's Friend and I had a lovely time rambling through them. Sure, I don't believe any of the religious stuff in them, but it was still fun to look at the kind of illustrations they once used and remember what my first take on some of the articles were. And it was fascinating to compare them with later versions and contemporary Mormon publications. They were, I think now, pretty benign compared to more recent iterations.

And the same goes for revisiting this old pamphlet. A censure of "spaghetti straps," provincial and odd as that terminology is, has nothing on the one-hole-per-ear rule.

I parted ways with the One True Church on the cusp of the Correlation Committee: I think that one development accounts for the difference I see between the church now and then. I'm interested in filling in the history, if only for reasons of personal history and nostalgia.

Church standards aren't any different than they were then, only to the extent that they've had to develop to keep pace with the continued deterioration of standards favored by our pop culture and people like Blixa.