# Where’s Cruiser?



## Flanderian

Though sartorially of a different bent, his superbly reasoned and expressed dissent leaves AAAC poorer for his absence.


----------



## JLibourel

Who cares?

I still miss Silk Ascot.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Well then start a thread about Silk Ascot, this one's for Cruiser. And if that was your edited version, hell knows what the original said. I too miss Cruiser and left a message some time back on his visitor page, but got no reply.


----------



## Luftvier

I haven't been here in a while, so I am surprised to hear he is gone. Perhaps I should start coming back more often…


----------



## Kurt N

He not only doesn't post anymore but doesn't check in, either. Whatever happened in early May that got him briefly banned apparently left him good and mad. The I'm-well-and-truly-done kind of mad. Count me among those who think it's a shame.


----------



## tocqueville

I always regarded him as a voice of reason.


----------



## Luftvier

Kurt N said:


> He not only doesn't post anymore but doesn't check in, either. Whatever happened in early May that got him briefly banned apparently left him good and mad. The I'm-well-and-truly-done kind of mad. Count me among those who think it's a shame.


I missed this. What was the kerfluffle?


----------



## JLibourel

No individual did more to lower the sartorial tone of this forum, overall, than Cruiser.


----------



## Flanderian

Kurt N said:


> happened in early May that got him briefly banned


I was away. What happened?


----------



## Kurt N

Flanderian said:


> I was away. What happened?


All I know is that one day he was banned, the moderator I PM'd about it didn't immediately know why, and neither that moderator nor any other ever gave an explanation. Cruiser was soon unbanned but never came back.

Relevant thread: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?111871-Bucket-Hats
And no, I don't think Cruiser was banned over his views on bucket hats.

Re. JLib's comment: Cruiser's ideas about dressing well were, let's say, less aspirational than mine. But he was articulate, generally even-tempered, and always game.


----------



## Peak and Pine

JLibourel said:


> No individual did more to lower the sartorial tone of this forum, overall, than Cruiser.


Harsh, but not being you I've no idea what prompts the venom. Each to his own I suppose.

Cruiser was a top notch writer and proponent of something I thought proponentless: the thought-out school of thoughtless dress. I saw his point on most things sartorial, took it often. Cruiser spoke regularly about how he dressed, was never dogmatic about it, espoused it for no one but himself and was an easy and enjoyable read. And he spit out great pictures from his youth. No complaints with him. Maybe one: I don't think he liked me as much as I liked him. O well, this isn't high school.


----------



## Mathguy

I liked Cruiser, too. He always seemed to be a voice of reason. He nicely balanced the automatic "Just go bespoke." answer some people have to every question.


----------



## Flanderian

Kurt N said:


> All I know is that one day he was banned, the moderator I PM'd about it didn't immediately know why, and neither that moderator nor any other ever gave an explanation. Cruiser was soon unbanned but never came back.


Thank you.

Wherever he is, I hope he's well.

In my youth I had a friend who used to say he looked good in cheap clothes. And, darnit, he did!

It takes more than taste to be a gentleman, and I would include Cruiser among them.


----------



## GrumF14

Flanderian said:


> In my youth I had a friend who used to say he looked good in cheap clothes. And, darnit, he did!
> It takes more than taste to be a gentleman, and I would include Cruiser among them.


I agree wholeheartedly. Cruiser reminds us that we can still look pretty darn good, even without the bespoke route. Even a suit from JC Penney can look good if it fits right and is tailored properly, and a bespoke suit can look awful if it doesn't fit right. All in the details and the confidence.


----------



## Flanderian

GrumF14 said:


> Even a suit from JC Penney can look good


Not exactly what I had in mind. That might be stretching things a bit.


----------



## GrumF14

Ok, perhaps a bit of a stretch. But if you're going to a church or a job interview, it certainly looks a whole lot better than a sports jersey or other less-than-proper attire (which I, unfortunately, _have_ seen at church). At least a man is trying, then, and if that's his wardrobe budget, then at least he's putting the effort in, as men used to, even during the Depression.


----------



## JLibourel

Cruiser was lowbrow, scurrilous, obnoxious and pertinacious and argumentative as a jailhouse lawyer. His ascendancy here precipitated the departure of most of the most sophisticated sartorialists. Let us not forget that he said that my wife was no better than a "gold digging whore" because I liked to wear an ascot on routine errands. Why he was not banned for that little gem has always been beyond me! I note that most of those who lament his passing joined after his ascendancy here and can't remember how great this forum once was.


----------



## Kurt N

^ Ouch, yes. I had indeed forgotten, but now remember, running across that exchange in the archives. I guess that's about the strongest possible answer to P&P's implied question about the source of "the venom."

Yes, I joined after the Golden Age. However, a well-regarded and now-departed member has, on the Other Forum, described this forum as having become "hidebound and crippled by social anxiety". I think he meant that those with the taste and means to buy high-end were mocked as hoity-toity, and I'm sorry to have fewer such gents around to learn from. But at the risk of sounding like Jessie Jackson, a good party needs more than one wing. A perspective such as Cruiser's (personal insults aside, of course) is part of a healthy overall mix. I would say a good mix would surround the broad middle with an upper crust, a lowbrow/common-man contingent, and a cohort from the loud/outrageous camp, as well. So that's a beast with three wings, at least. (If there's a fourth wing, for penny-pinching, nose-against-the-store-window wannabees, that's where you'll find me.)

PS - "Scurrilous" and "pertinacious" were nice touches.


----------



## Haffman

I'm another of the new members who joined (very much)'after the golden age' but I too had noticed that Cruiser had stopped posting and wondered what happened to him. He always had good photos...I even missed that cheesy one of him sitting before the American flag that he used as his icon (and then mysteriously stopped using a few weeks before he disappeared completely)

He did dare to suggest that the recent Royal wedding in England was a waste of money, so I assumed he'd been dragged off to the Tower.... hope he comes back some day


----------



## Kurt N

OK, just out of morbid curiosity I went back through the archives and browsed around in a very nasty thread from a ways back:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...roll-to-2-as-opposed-to-doing-a-2-button-suit

I could not muster the energy to read it all, start to finish. But...

(1) I couldn't find any place Cruiser actually compared anyone's wife a gold-digging whore. He was accused of doing so, and denied it.

(2) At the same time, he took great offense at having it implied, on another forum, that his daughter was slutty, or something along those lines, because she had a tattoo. Again, I didn't verify with my own eyes the original content and context of the alleged insult.

(3) That whole pissing contest started when Cruiser ventured that the top buttonhole on a 3-roll-2 jacket looked weird to most people, and that this was his reaction, as well. He wondered why it was an approved, classic look.

(4) Everyone and his natty uncle took umbrage with Cruiser for questioning the rationale behind the 3-roll-2. It was certainly his right to dislike the look, but WHAT THE HELL WAS HE DOING IN THIS FORUM? (Think about that for a minute. Grown men, livid with another grown man, over the merits of a 3-roll-2. I am both appalled and charmed, if such a state is possible.) No one attempted to actually answer his question, even though an answer was surely possible. It might have gone something like this: "The 3-roll-2 communicates a very particular kind of insouciance. Being a 3-button jacket, it marks its wearer as one rooted in traditions and values predating the era of Stuart and Lauren. On the other hand, the undone top button signifies that the wearer is in a relaxed, casual frame of mind--and the soft, easy roll suggests that this is his _usual_ condition." A better-informed poster than myself could easily have written something more accurate and more sophisticated. This was not even attempted, not by a single one of those smart gentlemen railing against Cruiser for his temerity.*,**

That was, for me, the takeaway from my quick perusal of the above-linked thread. Perhaps I'd have had a different takeaway if I'd read the whole thing. And maybe if I'd been a member for longer (as I see Peak & Pine has), I would better appreciate the frustration of JLibourel, Manton and the others, who apparently felt it was futile to reason with Cruiser.

*EDIT - Reading more carefully, I see that adhoc (long gone) and eagle2250 (still around!) each made an attempt to steer the discussion in the direction of cool reason. But they were paddling against the current.

**I continue to poke around that thread, feeling a bit foolish--a bit like a dog sniffing at dried vomit. On the 38th and last page, I find CuffDaddy offering a pithier version of my theory. And darned if Cruiser doesn't come back with an eminently sensible question: doesn't this put the 3/2 in the same category as pre-distressed jeans? A new item designed to look broken-in right off the shelf? That is a more thought-provoking post than "Cruiser, you're ruining this forum" (lather, rise, repeat).


----------



## Haffman

Kurt N said:


> OK, just out of morbid curiosity I went back through the archives and browsed around in a very nasty thread from a ways back:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...roll-to-2-as-opposed-to-doing-a-2-button-suit
> ]
> 
> That thread makes very ugly reading


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Haffman said:


> Kurt N said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, just out of morbid curiosity I went back through the archives and browsed around in a very nasty thread from a ways back:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...roll-to-2-as-opposed-to-doing-a-2-button-suit
> ]
> 
> That thread makes very ugly reading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boatshoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't I seen you at Jos. A. Bank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that was worth it!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Racer

Flanderian said:


> Though sartorially of a different bent, his superbly reasoned and expressed dissent leaves AAAC poorer for his absence.


No, it doesn't. Cruiser's "dissent" was neither superbly reasoned, nor superbly expressed. He was simply a contrarian, which doesn't take much talent at all.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Yes it does!!


----------



## Racer

Are not!!!!!


----------



## Flanderian

JLibourel said:


> Cruiser was lowbrow, scurrilous, obnoxious and pertinacious and argumentative as a jailhouse lawyer. His ascendancy here precipitated the departure of most of the most sophisticated sartorialists. Let us not forget that he said that my wife was no better than a "gold digging whore" because I liked to wear an ascot on routine errands. Why he was not banned for that little gem has always been beyond me! I note that most of those who lament his passing joined after his ascendancy here and can't remember how great this forum once was.


Well, that would explain a lot. I perceive of you as a man of high character, one whose posts I enjoy and highly value. As such, I accept your statement as fact. I too would be furious with such a slander. 

But as a more recent participant, while I can certainly understand criticisms of lowbrow, argumentative and pertinacious, I never experienced Cruiser during my tenure as obnoxious or scurrilous. To each their own, but I more often found veiled humor and an almost courtly manner in his demurs. That he obviously and deliberately was a contrarian is beyond doubt, but whether this was a bad thing, or something that inspired further personal consideration of a topic, I guess is best left to each individual to determine. At worst, he could simply be ignored.


----------



## Charles Saturn

Strangely, reading this thread, I imagine a man attending his own funeral.


----------



## El_Abogado

JLibourel said:


> No individual did more to lower the sartorial tone of this forum, overall, than Cruiser.


Funny, I thought he frequently tilted at the windmills of pomposity here. . . . I didn't always agree with him, but he challenged the fop and dandy orthodoxy. And that's a good thing.


----------



## JLibourel

Ah, the 3-roll-2 thread! In point of fact, it wasn't Cruiser's predictable distaste for the 3-roll-2 lapel, that was merely the catalyst, the result of several years of incessant lowbrow contentiousness on Cruiser's part. A lot of good men who had left this forum, in no small measure because of Cruiser's obnoxiousness, came back to participate in that epic thread.

In addition to his other shortcomings, Cruiser in his early days on this forum was a most vulgar braggart, always going on about his early retirement and "six-figure retirement income."


----------



## Kurt N

Cruiser did annoy the heck out of a lot of smart people, a fact not to be ignored. He posted tirelessly, and quite often his point was that the Average Joe would not like, understand, or care about, this X or that Y. That sort of observation is _occasionally _ appropriate even in a setting like this, but it seems fair to say that Cruiser overplayed it, and not just by a little bit. It's a shame this became the banner he was seen as marching under, when I think he often had other, smarter points to make.


----------



## StevenRocks

*best of luck to hime wherever he is, but...*

I remember joining here at the end of the Golden Age. It was a really sophisticated forum, and I learned a lot about what constitutes good dress from people who knew.

Enter Cruiser. He didn't single-handedly change AAAC, but he led it to a really strange place. We lost a lot of good people and the general tone changed from aspirational to somewhat ambiguous.

I personally got tired of him slathering his opinion all over everything and everyone and started blocking his posts after he tried to stand on a point I made about slim-fit pants that he disagreed with.

Good riddance. I don't miss him.


----------



## Racer

Kurt N said:


> (1) I couldn't find any place Cruiser actually compared anyone's wife a gold-digging whore. He was accused of doing so, and denied it.


To the best of my knowledge, Cruiser did not call anyone's wife a "gold-digging whore." His exact words were, "...gold digging slut...." :teacha:

Despite any subsequent denials, he really did do that. It's not in the thread you've viewed.


----------



## DoghouseReilly

He did like to bandy around his opinion. Some of his lasts posts were here:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?111906-THE-Wedding

Andy started a thread about the recent Royal wedding and how much he enjoyed watching it. Not 3 posts down, Cruiser starts talking about how it was inappropriately extravagant.  That's great and all, but why not start your own thread on it in the Interchange, instead of making your views known on Andy's thread?

Another one of his lasts posts was here:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?111871-Bucket-Hats

A poster asks about sources for bucket hats. People reply with options that seem too high for Cruiser. Four posts in, he comments that he paid $7 for his and that he can't justify paying more than that because he primarily wears it to the beach or when driving his convertible. How paying more than $7 for a bucket hat is an inexcusable indulgence, but owning a convertible is not, I'm not sure.

Anyway, I didn't particularly mind him, but he was a bit rude. Every OP isn't looking for a discussion of their belief structure. Maybe it was the lawyer in him that made him such a contrarian.


----------



## Racer

DoghouseReilly said:


> Maybe it was the lawyer in him that made him such a contrarian.


Cruiser a lawyer? No. Cruiser doesn't have a law degree. He was a government bureaucrat with a degree in Public Administration.


----------



## TMMKC

JLibourel said:


> Cruiser was lowbrow, scurrilous, obnoxious and pertinacious and argumentative as a jailhouse lawyer. His ascendancy here precipitated the departure of most of the most sophisticated sartorialists. Let us not forget that he said that my wife was no better than a "gold digging whore" because I liked to wear an ascot on routine errands. Why he was not banned for that little gem has always been beyond me! I note that most of those who lament his passing joined after his ascendancy here and can't remember how great this forum once was.


+1. I'm not losing any sleep over his departure, though I bet he'll be back. I was never convinced he cared that much about clothes anyway.

JLibourel, good to see you post again...it been too long. Then again, I don't come around these parts all that often anymore...AAAC isn't nearly as fun as it was two years ago.


----------



## DoghouseReilly

Racer said:


> Cruiser a lawyer? No. Cruiser doesn't have a law degree. He was a government bureaucrat with a degree in Public Administration.


Oh. Why did I think he was a lawyer? A bureaucrat. That makes more sense.


----------



## Orsini

Is this what you're looking for?



Kurt N said:


> OK, just out of morbid curiosity I went back through the archives and browsed around in a very nasty thread from a ways back:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...roll-to-2-as-opposed-to-doing-a-2-button-suit
> 
> I could not muster the energy to read it all, start to finish. But...
> 
> (1) I couldn't find any place Cruiser actually compared anyone's wife a gold-digging whore. He was accused of doing so, and denied it.
> 
> (2) At the same time, he took great offense at having it implied, on another forum, that his daughter was slutty, or something along those lines, because she had a tattoo. Again, I didn't verify with my own eyes the original content and context of the alleged insult.
> 
> (3) That whole pissing contest started when Cruiser ventured that the top buttonhole on a 3-roll-2 jacket looked weird to most people, and that this was his reaction, as well. He wondered why it was an approved, classic look.
> 
> (4) Everyone and his natty uncle took umbrage with Cruiser for questioning the rationale behind the 3-roll-2. It was certainly his right to dislike the look, but WHAT THE HELL WAS HE DOING IN THIS FORUM? (Think about that for a minute. Grown men, livid with another grown man, over the merits of a 3-roll-2. I am both appalled and charmed, if such a state is possible.) No one attempted to actually answer his question, even though an answer was surely possible. It might have gone something like this: "The 3-roll-2 communicates a very particular kind of insouciance. Being a 3-button jacket, it marks its wearer as one rooted in traditions and values predating the era of Stuart and Lauren. On the other hand, the undone top button signifies that the wearer is in a relaxed, casual frame of mind--and the soft, easy roll suggests that this is his _usual_ condition." A better-informed poster than myself could easily have written something more accurate and more sophisticated. This was not even attempted, not by a single one of those smart gentlemen railing against Cruiser for his temerity.*,**
> 
> That was, for me, the takeaway from my quick perusal of the above-linked thread. Perhaps I'd have had a different takeaway if I'd read the whole thing. And maybe if I'd been a member for longer (as I see Peak & Pine has), I would better appreciate the frustration of JLibourel, Manton and the others, who apparently felt it was futile to reason with Cruiser.
> 
> *EDIT - Reading more carefully, I see that adhoc (long gone) and eagle2250 (still around!) each made an attempt to steer the discussion in the direction of cool reason. But they were paddling against the current.
> 
> **I continue to poke around that thread, feeling a bit foolish--a bit like a dog sniffing at dried vomit. On the 38th and last page, I find CuffDaddy offering a pithier version of my theory. And darned if Cruiser doesn't come back with an eminently sensible question: doesn't this put the 3/2 in the same category as pre-distressed jeans? A new item designed to look broken-in right off the shelf? That is a more thought-provoking post than "Cruiser, you're ruining this forum" (lather, rise, repeat).


----------



## Kurt N

Racer said:


> His exact words were, "...gold digging slut...." :teacha: Despite any subsequent denials, he really did do that. It's not in the thread you've viewed.


I really hadn't planned to spend a good part of my day writing about Cruiser. It's just that I hate to see a man talked smack about without someone there to defend him, if only for the sake of balance.

Enough with the obliqueness. Here is The Thread: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...?74442-Delusion-of-quot-Comfort-quot-Slobwear

Anyone can read it and make his own guesses about what people meant and intended. I'm hoping I can now stop posting to this thread.


----------



## Orsini

*Long Overdue*

I don't have time to read this now, but I'm sorry to have missed whatever it was.

I am not going to cry any crocodile tears. That character ruined this joint. He was the best at what he did that I have ever seen.

You rookies, irrespective of number of posts, don't know what you're talking about. He destroyed this place.


----------



## Orsini

This new interface does not fit my screen, so I don't have any way to reply to any PMs.


----------



## Flanderian

Racer said:


> To the best of my knowledge, Cruiser did not call anyone's wife a "gold-digging whore." His exact words were, "...gold digging slut...." :teacha:
> 
> Despite any subsequent denials, he really did do that. It's not in the thread you've viewed.


That's sad to learn.


----------



## Racer

Kurt N said:


> IIt's just that I hate to see a man talked smack about


I'd like you to explain exactly what "smack" I was talking in the post you quoted. AFAIC, it was a statement of fact, not smack. Cruiser really did post those words, and anyone can see them in the thread.

I await your clarification.


----------



## Haffman

Orsini said:


> You rookies, irrespective of number of posts, don't know what you're talking about. He destroyed this place.


That could well be true but an intriguing question remains. If pre 2006/07 was the Golden Age, and 2007-11 was the Age of Barbarism/Age of Arby....with Cruiser gone what lies before us? A Renaissance perchance ?


----------



## Kurt N

Racer said:


> I'd like you to explain exactly what "smack" I was talking in the post you quoted. AFAIC, it was a statement of fact, not smack. Cruiser really did post those words, and anyone can see them in the thread.
> 
> I await your clarification.


Hey, I didn't mean to be provocative with the word "smack." It was my clumsy effort to be less wordy and tedious than I usually am. I didn't mean to call you or anyone else a liar, and if the word "smack" carries that meaning, then I just demonstrated my poor grasp of the word. I only meant "harsh criticisms." Anyway, my use of the ill-chosen word "smack" wasn't specifically directed at your quoted post. On re-reading, I can see that this was far from clear, and for that I am sorry. I was _replying_ to your post, but I was talking _about_ *all *the criticisms of Cruiser up to that point. And I was just trying to say that if a guy is going to be criticized in his absence, he should have an advocate.

Up to that point, I hadn't actually seen the facts for myself. Having found The Thread, I linked to it, so that (exactly as you say) anyone can see. Please note that it was I who finally put the link up, so that instead of relying on memory or a secondhand report, anyone who still cares can see Cruiser's and everyone else's comments in the context of the entire thread, start to finish. If I were trying to cloud the facts to make Cruiser look better than he deserved, that would be a strange way to go about it--right?


----------



## Howard

Was Cruiser the guy with a dressed up man with a moustache as his avatar?


----------



## Orsini

Haffman said:


> That could well be true but an intriguing question remains. If pre 2006/07 was the Golden Age, and 2007-11 was the Age of Barbarism/Age of Arby....with Cruiser gone what lies before us? A Renaissance perchance ?


I never said any of that.

He was a you-know-what who knew zip about wardrobe and couldn't care less.

Whatever he has landed on now is in a lot of trouble. Probably a Corvette forum. Or a Porsche forum. Or both...


----------



## Dr. François

I won't wander into the fray, but would someone be willing to post a few "Golden Age" threads? 

I'd like to compare the tone of conversations before his arrival to those afterward.


----------



## Titus_A

Who knew there was a Golden Age? I guess it's like being born in Athens after the Romans have come through.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Come election time some people whose houses you pass every day stick candidates' signs on their lawn and you find out something about the people who live there that you never knew and when the election's over and the signs come down and you pass those same houses you never forget that this place is where the crazy ass conservative lives and that place is where the crazy ass liberal lives and your impression of the occupants is changed forever. This thread is like that.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Gentlemen: There never was a "Golden Age" and the reality is that not one of us, past present or future forum members are indispensable! One of the reasons I held off becoming an active member, rather than just visiting these fora on a regular basis for quite a long time, is that back in the so called "Golden Age," while the conversations about clothing were interesting and some even fascinating, the personalities demonstrated by a number of the participants seemed to drip with a typically 'I'm better than you' arrogance and the arguments frequently devolved to a level of pettiness that was simply off-putting to me. In spite of what some may allege, these fora are, qualitatively, no different today than they were three, four or five years ago. The only true reality pertaining to these fora or any other Internet forum, is that any one or all of us could leave and new members will show-up to take our place(s) and the fora will go on. Cruiser, while an anathema to some, did presented some of the best researched and logically presented arguments for his positions that I have read and I will miss his postings. However, for whatever reason, Cruiser got bored of or lost interest in this little family of ours...and left. Life goes on...live with it!

Bye golly, it pains me to say this but, I think I just agreed with Peak and Pine on something! :crazy:


----------



## Racer

Kurt N said:


> Hey, I didn't mean to be provocative with the word "smack." It was my clumsy effort to be less wordy and tedious than I usually am. I didn't mean to call you or anyone else a liar, and if the word "smack" carries that meaning, then I just demonstrated my poor grasp of the word. I only meant "harsh criticisms." Anyway, my use of the ill-chosen word "smack" wasn't specifically directed at your quoted post. On re-reading, I can see that this was far from clear, and for that I am sorry. I was _replying_ to your post, but I was talking _about_ *all *the criticisms of Cruiser up to that point. And I was just trying to say that if a guy is going to be criticized in his absence, he should have an advocate.


Thanks for the clarification - I understand now what you were trying to do.

Let me offer you an opinion on whether Cruiser needs an advocate: if he were truly banned, and thus unable to speak for himself, or if he was being libeled unawares (such as someone accusing him of illegal, immoral, or unethical activities), I would say that advocacy would be warranted. Since he appears to be able to return anytime he likes to, and I haven't seen anything in this thread that could be construed as libel, I don't think Cruiser needs an advocate.



> Up to that point, I hadn't actually seen the facts for myself. Having found The Thread, I linked to it, so that (exactly as you say) anyone can see. Please note that it was I who finally put the link up, so that instead of relying on memory or a secondhand report, anyone who still cares can see Cruiser's and everyone else's comments in the context of the entire thread, start to finish. If I were trying to cloud the facts to make Cruiser look better than he deserved, that would be a strange way to go about it--right?


Yes, you did indeed link the thread. I chose not to do that, because I figured anyone who really wants to read it can find it for themselves. In addition, I have to say that I really can't think of any "context" that makes it OK to refer to someone's wife as a gold digging slut, so the content of the thread itself really doesn't matter to me. No matter what the situation is, no matter what the provocation might be, no matter what qualifiers or caveats are placed around it, a statement like that is never anything more than a vile insult. As we say around these parts, "Them's fightin' words." Nevertheless, all of that happened years ago.


----------



## Peak and Pine

eagle2250 said:


> Bye golly, it pains me to say this but, I think I just agreed with Peak and Pine on something! :crazy:


You agree with me all the time and I make your life a better place because I'm in it and you know that, and it's _by golly_, Sarah, not _bye golly_ unless you're actually saying goodbye to Golly, but forget about that, I have a flash: Cruiser is with us still, or his ghost or something, because he has clicked into my profile page despite my warning you all never to do that and a little sleuthing reveals he did that around 1 o'clock yesterday.


----------



## Haffman

eagle2250 said:


> Gentlemen: There never was a "Golden Age" and the reality is that not one of us, past present or future forum members are indispensable! One of the reasons I held off becoming an active member, rather than just visiting these fora on a regular basis for quite a long time, is that back in the so called "Golden Age," while the conversations about clothing were interesting and some even fascinating, the personalities demonstrated by a number of the participants seemed to drip with a typically 'I'm better than you' arrogance and the arguments frequently devolved to a level of pettiness that was simply off-putting to me. In spite of what some may allege, these fora are, qualitatively, no different today than they were three, four or five years ago. The only true reality pertaining to these fora or any other Internet forum, is that any one or all of us could leave and new members will show-up to take our place(s) and the fora will go on. Cruiser, while an anathema to some, did presented some of the best researched and logically presented arguments for his positions that I have read and I will miss his postings. However, for whatever reason, Cruiser got bored of or lost interest in this little family of ours...and left. Life goes on...live with it!
> 
> Bye golly, it pains me to say this but, I think I just agreed with Peak and Pine on something! :crazy:


Ahhh...so we are entering "The Age of Reason"!


----------



## Acct2000

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Bye golly, it pains me to say this but, I think I just agreed with Peak and Pine on something! :crazy:


So should we start making arrangements for the formal Peace News Conference now??


----------



## Acct2000

Peak and Pine said:


> I have a flash: Cruiser is with us still, or his ghost or something, because he has clicked into my profile page despite my warning you all never to do that - - - - QUOTE]
> 
> Not even just a quick little peek??? (Peak???)


----------



## jpeirpont

JLibourel said:


> No individual did more to lower the sartorial tone of this forum, overall, than Cruiser.





GrumF14 said:


> I agree wholeheartedly. Cruiser reminds us that we can still look pretty darn good, even without the bespoke route. Even a suit from JC Penney can look good if it fits right and is tailored properly, and a bespoke suit can look awful if it doesn't fit right. All in the details and the confidence.


point proven?


StevenRocks said:


> I remember joining here at the end of the Golden Age. It was a really sophisticated forum, and I learned a lot about what constitutes good dress from people who knew.
> 
> Enter Cruiser. He didn't single-handedly change AAAC, but he led it to a really strange place. We lost a lot of good people and the general tone changed from aspirational to somewhat ambiguous.
> 
> I personally got tired of him slathering his opinion all over everything and everyone and started blocking his posts after he tried to stand on a point I made about slim-fit pants that he disagreed with.
> 
> Good riddance. I don't miss him.


i concur... he was useless.


----------



## The Rambler

repetitive, predictable, banal, and fierce in defense of his right to be so.


----------



## eagle2250

jpeirpont said:


> point proven?
> 
> i concur... he was useless.


How ironic it is that your comments are so inconsistent with your signature line (the Alexander Crummell qotation)..."Let our posterity know that we their ancestors, uncultured and unlearned, were men of integrity." How do statements that seem to denigrate one's character because of how one dresses or advocates dressing, square with that? Prejudice comes in many guises, Sir. Just thinkin! :icon_scratch:


----------



## arkirshner

JLibourel said:


> A lot of good men who had left this forum, in no small measure because of Cruiser's obnoxiousness, came back to participate in that epic thread.


After getting remarried a few years ago, during what is now characterized as the AAAC Golden Age, I left this forum to concentrate on that most honorable estate. A few months ago, having settled into a matrimonial routine, I returned only to find that many, if not most, of those gentlemen who were the most knowledgeable were no longer here. I attributed this to boredom on the part of those good men caused by seeing the same old questions and topics raised time and again. I now have learned that I was wrong and that the poster who referenced Gresham's Law hit the nail on the head.
After having read the 3 roll 2 and slob wear threads, the esteem in which I held Dr. Libourel, which was already high, is now higher still. That he would even log on to a forum that allowed the comment directed to his wife shows a level of maturity I certainly have not reached, a level that is almost beyond my comprehension. Cruiser is lucky, Andrew Jackson killed a man for less.

s


----------



## jackmccullough

In case you're interested, Cruiser's profile indicates that he's online right now, viewing the cited (The Delusion of Comfort Slobwear)thread.

Maybe we'll hear from him, maybe not, but the reference to attending one's own funeral may be apt.


----------



## Starting Late

I started to read that thread, got bored, and then pressed the button to remove it from my screen. I think I heard myself screaming, "Enough already."



Haffman said:


> Kurt N said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, just out of morbid curiosity I went back through the archives and browsed around in a very nasty thread from a ways back:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...roll-to-2-as-opposed-to-doing-a-2-button-suit
> ]
> 
> That thread makes very ugly reading
Click to expand...


----------



## El_Abogado

JLibourel said:


> Let us not forget that he said that my wife was no better than a "gold digging whore" because I liked to wear an ascot on routine errands.


Yes, and wasn't that after you referred to his daughter as a "hoe"? Bad form, chap. Poorly played and unsportsmanlike of you. Then, and now.


----------



## El_Abogado

arkirshner said:


> Cruiser is lucky, Andrew Jackson killed a man for less.
> 
> s


Any man who uttered "hoe" in reference to another man's daughter has Providence to thank for his continued existence. In this case, it was Providence and Cruiser that the man should thank. . . . Your maturity isn't what you think it is, nor is your reading comprehension or understanding of the facts as set forth in the thread in question.


----------



## Haffman

El_Abogado said:


> Any man who uttered "hoe" in reference to another man's daughter has Providence to thank for his continued existence. In this case, it was Providence and Cruiser that the man should thank. . . . Your maturity isn't what you think it is, nor is your reading comprehension or understanding of the facts as set forth in the thread in question.


Have to agree with this. Of course, I wasn't there and perhaps should not be digging old graves - but on reading that thread the barb, and it clearly was a barb, about Cruiser's daughter was WAY out of line. No way for any gentleman to behave, however exasperated. Cruiser responded to this 'oblique' insult by making a similarly 'oblique' insult of his own. He later apologised for this and rightly so. It would have been better to keep a dignified silence to shame any man who would lower himself to implying, in however veiled a way, that another man's daughter is like a prostitute. To do such a thing on a website devoted to men's clothing and style seems even further beyond the pale.


----------



## Bjorn

Bygones? You're not banned until you're banned. And banning is in the province of moderators.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
+1. Haffman is spot-on with his assessment. There was far too much bad behavior and inappropriate comment offered by members chiming in on both sides of the debate, in the thread from Hell that has been so often referenced in this present thread. In my short career playing ball (more than 45 years ago) in high school we called it dog-piling the runner. Today I see it as just adding more sh*t to the pile. In any event, it is certainly not a thread in which I take any pride and simply wish it could have stayed buried.


----------



## JLibourel

El_Abogado said:


> Yes, and wasn't that after you referred to his daughter as a "hoe"? Bad form, chap. Poorly played and unsportsmanlike of you. Then, and now.


You stupid fool! I never said a damn thing about Cruiser's daughter except in the 3-roll-2 thread where I said she looked like a cute kid and I felt sorry for her having Cruiser for a father. To the best of my knowledge nobody in this forum ever said anything whatsoever about Cruiser's daughter. There was a thread about tattooed girls, in which quite a few members said they looked slutty and whatnot. I said there was much to be said for slutty girls on occasion. Nobody said anything about Cruiser's daughter, who happened to have a tattoo. I don't think anybody knew Cruiser had a daughter, much less a tattooed one. However, Cruiser took it all very personally and it transformed him from an obscure presence on the forum into a rampaging, obnoxious troublemaker.

If you're an attorney, as your user name implies, I should think you, of all people, might want to get your facts straight before shooting off your big mouth. Right, "chap"?


----------



## hardline_42

JLib's right. I'm ashamed to admit that I actually went back and read those threads in their entirety (mostly). JLib made some general comments about "tramp stamps" and "cheap sluts," but they weren't directed at anyone in particular.

Regarding Cruiser and his impact on this forum, I've never been personally offended by anything he's said, and in some non-clothing threads I readily agreed with his no-frills attitude, but he doesn't seem like he even really likes clothes. I mean, in order to have meaningful discussion on the finer points of anything, you have to agree on some baseline ideology and his baseline is "it's all relative."


----------



## arkirshner

El_Abogado said:


> Any man who uttered "hoe" in reference to another man's daughter has Providence to thank for his continued existence. In this case, it was Providence and Cruiser that the man should thank. . . . Your maturity isn't what you think it is, nor is your reading comprehension or understanding of the facts as set forth in the thread in question.


As to your first point,I agree with you that it is wrong to refer to a man's daughter as a "hoe". Please link, or otherwise refer me to the post in which Dr. Libourel is alleged to have done this or withdraw your allegation.

Your second point it seems is simply to denigrate my maturity, reading comprehension, and understanding. It is this very pattern of first making a point and then segueing to personal invective that is the calling card of those who created the poison that erupted in the 3 roll 2 and slob wear threads, poison that drove true gentleman like Manton away. My experience in returning to this forum after an absence reminds me of the Charlton Heston character returning to the Planet of the Apes, things are just different, and not in a good way.


----------



## OH-CPA

JLibourel said:


> You stupid fool! I never said a damn thing about Cruiser's daughter


Check out post #80 in this thread:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-Delusion-of-quot-Comfort-quot-Slobwear/page4

This post was no better than cruisers response at post 94. The fact of the matter is that many people in that thread acted poorly. It was wrong back then and it was wrong to make people think that Cruiser made the comment about your wife with out provocation. It was still wrong to do but at least he apologized later on in the thread. I never did see an apology for the insult to his daughter.

I am sad Cruiser isn't posting anymore, not because I agreed with him but because he offered another point of view (even if I thought he was wrong more often then not


----------



## eagle2250

^^
I have long been an admirer of Jan's writing and read the publication for which he served as editor but was unaware that he had received his Doctorate. It seems we all should do a better job of our research...myself included! Just thinkin :icon_scratch:


----------



## hardline_42

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I have long been an admirer of Jan's writing and read the publication for which he served as editor but was unaware that he had received his Doctorate. It seems we all should do a better job of our research...myself included! Just thinkin :icon_scratch:


 Wow, I just made the connection. JLibourel is Jan Libourel! ZOMG! I'm new here...


----------



## arkirshner

OH-CPA said:


> Check out post #80 in this thread:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-Delusion-of-quot-Comfort-quot-Slobwear/page4
> 
> This post was no better than cruisers response at post 94. The fact of the matter is that many people in that thread acted poorly. It was wrong back then and it was wrong to make people think that Cruiser made the comment about your wife with out provocation. It was still wrong to do but at least he apologized later on in the thread. I never did see an apology for the insult to his daughter.
> 
> I am sad Cruiser isn't posting anymore, not because I agreed with him but because he offered another point of view (even if I thought he was wrong more often then not


The actual quote is:

Cruiser, Cruiser, Cruiser! Since you got on this kick awhile back, you just seem to take everything so personally. I think this started when some members made deprecatory comments about tattooed ladies. You took it personally and sprang to your daughter's defense as if we were attacking her as an individual. Another man might have used the thread as an excuse to tell his daughter to cover up her tattoo, lest men think that she is, in fact, a "hoe," but I guess that never occurred to you.

If we may, let us return to Logic 101 where the exam questions are:

(1 ) Some men think women with visible tattoos are "hoes".
Jezebel has a tattoo

Which of the following are true?

A All men think Jezebel is a hoe

B Jezebel is a hoe

C Jezebel is not a hoe

D Jezebel might be a hoe

E Some men think Jezebel is a hoe

I hope you answered D and E

(2 ) All men think women without visible tattoos are chaste
Some men think women with visible tattoos are hoes
M. Theresa has a visible tattoo

Which of the following are true?

A M Theresa is a hoe

B M Theresa is chaste

C All men think M Theresa is a hoe

D M Theresa is either a hoe or chaste

E Some men think M Theresa is a hoe

I hope you answered D and E

(3 ) All men think women without visible tattoos are chaste
Some men think women with visible tattoos are hoes
M Theresa covers up her tattoo

Which of the following are true?

A M Theresa is a hoe

B M Theresa is chaste

C Some men think M Theresa is a hoe

D All men think M Theresa is chaste

I hope you answered D

If you passed the test and reread Dr. Libourel's post you will see that he did not call anyone a hoe; he simply suggested that because _some_ men think women with visible tattoos are hoes, a woman with a visible tattoo would be well advised to cover it.


----------



## Bjorn

arkirshner said:


> Another man might have used the thread as an excuse to tell his daughter to cover up her tattoo, lest men think that she is, in fact, a "hoe," but I guess that never occurred to you.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you passed the test and reread Dr. Libourel's post you will see that he did not call anyone a hoe; he simply suggested that because _some_ men think women with visible tattoos are hoes, a woman with a visible tattoo would be well advised to cover it.


I find the statement about tattooed women sexist and stupid. "well advised"???

If men think that, logic states they should correct their thinking, not that women should cover up. No woman should have to cover herself in the presence of gentlemen.

This thread is appalling. The idea of fathers telling their daughters to cover up their tattoos is as well.

The golddigger comment was more to the point and criticises an active behaviour rather than a perceived sexuality. Less creepy. Also, it was after provocation.

I'm siding with cruiser on this one although I don't agree with much of his viewpoints since they seem overly socially conscious. I know what the guy in workwear or slobwear thinks when he sees me in a jacket or suit: "who's that dandified snob, they should all die". I'm not saying I'm a better person than that guy. But I'm dressed better. Makes all the difference.

Keep daughters out of it though.


----------



## JLibourel

Bjorn said:


> I find the statement about tattooed women sexist and stupid. "well advised"???
> 
> If men think that, logic states they should correct their thinking, not that women should cover up. No woman should have to cover herself in the presence of gentlemen.
> 
> This thread is appalling. The idea of fathers telling their daughters to cover up their tattoos is as well.
> 
> The golddigger comment was more to the point and criticises an active behaviour rather than a perceived sexuality. Less creepy. Also, it was after provocation.
> 
> I'm siding with cruiser on this one although I don't agree with much of his viewpoints since they seem overly socially conscious. I know what the guy in workwear or slobwear thinks when he sees me in a jacket or suit: "who's that dandified snob, they should all die". I'm not saying I'm a better person than that guy. But I'm dressed better. Makes all the difference.
> 
> Keep daughters out of it though.


"No woman should have to cover herself in the presence of gentlemen"? Is the converse of this true? Can I run out buck-naked into the midst of a bunch of ladies?

Fathers' telling their daughters to cover up their tattoos is "appalling"?

Do you or have you ever had an adolescent daughter? I thought just about every parent (more commonly the mother) tells her daughter at some point, "You're NOT going out looking like THAT!"

But maybe things are different in Sweden.


----------



## JLibourel

OH-CPA said:


> Check out post #80 in this thread:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-Delusion-of-quot-Comfort-quot-Slobwear/page4
> 
> This post was no better than cruisers response at post 94. The fact of the matter is that many people in that thread acted poorly. It was wrong back then and it was wrong to make people think that Cruiser made the comment about your wife with out provocation. It was still wrong to do but at least he apologized later on in the thread. I never did see an apology for the insult to his daughter.
> 
> I am sad Cruiser isn't posting anymore, not because I agreed with him but because he offered another point of view (even if I thought he was wrong more often then not


If you consider what I said in post 80 equivalent to what Cruiser said later on, either you have poor comprehension of written English or an IQ somewhere south of 90. Which is it?


----------



## eagle2250

JLibourel said:


> You stupid fool! I never ...
> ........





JLibourel said:


> If you consider what I said in post 80 equivalent to what Cruiser said later on, either you have poor comprehension of written English or an IQ somewhere south of 90. Which is it?


Resorting to the use of personal insults in response to opinions/questions others have voiced pertaining to what at best can be interpreted as very ill advised and at worst, terribly insulting comments, offered by yourself in earlier posts, seems a very lowbrow and inappropriate means of response, even out here in the Badlands of the Interchange. Given your extensive background as a writer and an educator and noting that PhD behind your name, I would hope you could do better than that! Let's back off with the personal insults.


----------



## Pentheos

DoghouseReilly said:


> A poster asks about sources for bucket hats. People reply with options that seem too high for Cruiser. Four posts in, he comments that he paid $7 for his and that he can't justify paying more than that because he primarily wears it to the beach or when driving his convertible. How paying more than $7 for a bucket hat is an inexcusable indulgence, but owning a convertible is not, I'm not sure.


Maybe he got the convertible at Walmart.


----------



## El_Abogado

JLibourel said:


> Cruiser, Cruiser, Cruiser! Since you got on this kick awhile back, you just seem to take everything so personally. I think this started when some members made deprecatory comments about tattoed [sic] [sic] ladies. You took it personally and sprang to your daughter's defense as if we were attacking her as an individual. Another man might have used the thread as an excuse to tell his daughter to cover up her tattoo, lest men think that she is, in fact, a "hoe," but I guess that never occurred to you.


So, because Cruiser's daughter apparently has a tattoo, you think Cruiser should tell his daughter to cover up that tattoo, "lest men think that she is, in fact, a 'hoe [sic],'?"And then you denigrate Cruiser by suggesting that he wasn't bright enough to come up with that on his own? Well done, Ayatollah. Bravo. Let's insist that all women wear modest dress, burkas, hijabs and the like. Are you sexist? I don't know, but it sure seems that way.




Cruiser said:


> Of course you are right. Of course I think any woman that marries a man who dons an ascot and pocket square to go to the market is most likely just a golddigging slut who thinks he has money, not much better than a "hoe". Inf act she's not as good because at least the hoe isn't pretending to besomething she isn't. I'm not talking about anyone personally, just the typical tramp that would take up with a guy like that.


Was Cruiser's general comment about gold diggers who marry ascot-wearing fops appropriate? No. Was it understandable in light of your suggesting his daughter was a "hoe [sic]?" Absolutely.




JLibourel said:


> Do you or have you ever had an adolescent daughter?


I have three daughters, Jan.I'll decide what I think is appropriate or not. I don't need you, nor does Cruiser. Stick to whatever it is that you are good at. Seriously.




JLibourel said:


> You stupid fool! I never said a damn thing about Cruiser's daughter except . . . .


I have not made any ad hominem attacks on you. Yet you feel the need to call me a fool? Do you read theBible? Really? Look at Matthew 5:22. ". . . . and whoever shall say, 'You fool,'shall be guilty enough to go into the hell of fire." 

I am neither unwise nor imprudent by calling you out on the facts. You indirectly called Cruiser's daughter a "hoe [sic]." And, yes, he indirectly referred your wife as a "gold digging slut." Reading is fundamental, Jan. Even for gunwriters.




JLibourel said:


> If you're an attorney, as your user name implies, I should think you, of allpeople, might want to get your facts straight before shooting off your big mouth.Right, "chap"?


I am an attorney, Jan, Just as you are a gunwriter. That is, I practice law and your words are printed in gun magazines. One of us is a member of the honorable profession and the other one of us is a hack. (Yes, Jan. That was personal and it was directed at you, lest you missed it.) The facts, and more specifically, your words, speak for themselves. You called Cruiser's daughter a "hoe [sic]." Man up and apologize. And then move on. 

I'm sure you don't recall,but we met once over ten years ago. I was with a state agency at the time and you flew or drove in for a competitive firearms event. I was taken aback by your pomposity, equaled only by your girth. Ostensibly you were there to cover a competition among hunters of men, yet it was obvious to me and others that you had neither the physical conditioning nor the training to fully comprehend and relate to your readers the activities that you only occasionally attended that week. I saw all I need to know about you then and it has remained with me.There are better men out there and on this site. While I've rarely agreed with him, Cruiser is one of those better men. Humility and introspection would serve you well, gunwriter. Let this be a teachable moment for you.


----------



## JLibourel

El_Abogado said:


> I'm sure you don't recall,but we met once over ten years ago. I was with a state agency at the time and you flew or drove in for a competitive firearms event. I was taken aback by your pomposity, equaled only by your girth. Ostensibly you were there to cover a competition among hunters of men, yet it was obvious to me and others that you had neither the physical conditioning nor the training to fully comprehend and relate to your readers the activities that you only occasionally attended that week. I saw all I need to know about you then and it has remained with me.There are better men out there and on this site. While I've rarely agreed with him, Cruiser is one of those better men. Humility and introspection would serve you well, gunwriter. Let this be a teachable moment for you.


I am not going to bandy words with you over the rest of your comments lest I violate the enforced code of "niceness" regnant on this forum. However, as to this last, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about! I certainly have not been to a "competition among hunters of men" that I can ever recollect. Was this some sort of police match...or what? I have attended a few events like the Steel Challenge in the past but nothing on the order your describe. And my "girth"? In general I have stood about 6'3", weighed about 220, and had a size 38 waist with about 10- or 11-inch drop for many a long year. Frankly, I think you have confused me with some other gun writer! Sure wouldn't want you as my counselor, shyster!


----------



## El_Abogado

JLibourel said:


> I am not going to bandy words with you over the rest of your comments lest I violate the enforced code of "niceness" regnant on this forum.


You called me a "stupid fool." Your mendacity knows no bounds.



JLibourel said:


> Sure wouldn't want you as my counselor, shyster!


Gunwriter, perhaps you are unaware that "shyster" is derived from the German word "Scheisser", or defacator. Certainly, you are aware that shyster is commonly viewed as an anti-Semitic term for Jewish lawyers. I could care less what you think of me, but you really ought to reconsider your use of the term, "shyster", Jan Libourel. What exactly is it you are trying to say?


----------



## Racer

You guys are pathetic.

Cruiser isn't even here, but he's got you arguing over semantics and relativistic nonsense. What a legacy. Well done, Cruiser. Well done!


----------



## Jovan

Peak and Pine said:


> Come election time some people whose houses you pass every day stick candidates' signs on their lawn and you find out something about the people who live there that you never knew and when the election's over and the signs come down and you pass those same houses you never forget that this place is where the crazy ass conservative lives and that place is where the crazy ass liberal lives and your impression of the occupants is changed forever. This thread is like that.


 Holy sheep s*** do I ever agree with you.


----------



## Orsini

Peak and Pine said:


> ...he has clicked into my profile page despite my warning you all never to do that...


Not much to it...


----------



## JLibourel

El_Abogado said:


> You called me a "stupid fool." Your mendacity knows no bounds.
> 
> Gunwriter, perhaps you are unaware that "shyster" is derived from the German word "Scheisser", or defacator. Certainly, you are aware that shyster is commonly viewed as an anti-Semitic term for Jewish lawyers. I could care less what you think of me, but you really ought to reconsider your use of the term, "shyster", Jan Libourel. What exactly is it you are trying to say?


Give some specifics about this shooting event where I was so pompous and obese. The more I think about it, the more I think you are just a flat-out liar, something that some would say comes easily to your "honorable profession." At least I fly under my own colors. I have no idea whether you are in fact a lawyer or anything else you claim to be. I was unaware that "shyster" had anti-semitic connotations. If so, I apologize for its use.


----------



## Orsini

arkirshner said:


> The actual quote is:
> 
> Cruiser, Cruiser, Cruiser! Since you got on this kick awhile back, you just seem to take everything so personally. I think this started when some members made deprecatory comments about tattooed ladies. You took it personally and sprang to your daughter's defense as if we were attacking her as an individual. Another man might have used the thread as an excuse to tell his daughter to cover up her tattoo, lest men think that she is, in fact, a "hoe," but I guess that never occurred to you.
> 
> If we may, let us return to Logic 101 where the exam questions are:
> 
> (1 ) Some men think women with visible tattoos are "hoes".
> Jezebel has a tattoo
> 
> Which of the following are true?
> 
> A All men think Jezebel is a hoe
> 
> B Jezebel is a hoe
> 
> C Jezebel is not a hoe
> 
> D Jezebel might be a hoe
> 
> E Some men think Jezebel is a hoe
> 
> I hope you answered D and E
> 
> (2 ) All men think women without visible tattoos are chaste
> Some men think women with visible tattoos are hoes
> M. Theresa has a visible tattoo
> 
> Which of the following are true?
> 
> A M Theresa is a hoe
> 
> B M Theresa is chaste
> 
> C All men think M Theresa is a hoe
> 
> D M Theresa is either a hoe or chaste
> 
> E Some men think M Theresa is a hoe
> 
> I hope you answered D and E
> 
> (3 ) All men think women without visible tattoos are chaste
> Some men think women with visible tattoos are hoes
> M Theresa covers up her tattoo
> 
> Which of the following are true?
> 
> A M Theresa is a hoe
> 
> B M Theresa is chaste
> 
> C Some men think M Theresa is a hoe
> 
> D All men think M Theresa is chaste
> 
> I hope you answered D
> 
> If you passed the test and reread Dr. Libourel's post you will see that he did not call anyone a hoe; he simply suggested that because _some_ men think women with visible tattoos are hoes, a woman with a visible tattoo would be well advised to cover it.


You got too much time on your hands.


----------



## Kurt N

JLibourel said:


> I was unaware that "shyster" had anti-semitic connotations.


El Abogado, so was I.


----------



## TMMKC

jackmccullough said:


> In case you're interested, Cruiser's profile indicates that he's online right now, viewing the cited (The Delusion of Comfort Slobwear)thread.
> 
> Maybe we'll hear from him, maybe not, but the reference to attending one's own funeral may be apt.


Wow...Jack...good to hear from you.


----------



## OH-CPA

JLibourel said:


> If you consider what I said in post 80 equivalent to what Cruiser said later on, either you have poor comprehension of written English or an IQ somewhere south of 90. Which is it?


Both myself and others (including Cruiser) took your statement as an insult to Cruiser's daughter. Aparentley all of us who feel this way are of below average intelligence in you book. It is apparent from the reference post that you intended to imply Cruiser's daughter was a "hoe" arguing that was not your intent is purely a matter of semantics. While I am confident that the tests that I took as a child were correct in stating that my IQ is north of 90, even if they were not is it gentlemanly to insult those who you perceive as having a lower than average IQ just because they don't agree with you?

I have one final question for you? Given you comments in the reference thread that say the world would be a better place if everyone under an IQ of 100 would die how am I supposed to respond when you say that I have a sub 90 IQ?


----------



## OH-CPA

eagle2250 said:


> Resorting to the use of personal insults in response to opinions/questions others have voiced pertaining to what at best can be interpreted as very ill advised and at worst, terribly insulting comments, offered by yourself in earlier posts, seems a very lowbrow and inappropriate means of response, even out here in the Badlands of the Interchange. Given your extensive background as a writer and an educator and noting that PhD behind your name, I would hope you could do better than that! Let's back off with the personal insults.


I am responding to this tread for two reasons:

1) I really like the phrase "the Badlands of the Interchange" and

2) To say that I really appreciate the moderators calling for civility even in the interchange section of the forum. If there is one trait that we should all agree on that is necessary for all gentlemen it should be that they treat everyone in a civil manor.


----------



## arkirshner

El_Abogado said:


> So, because Cruiser's daughter apparently has a tattoo, you think Cruiser should tell his daughter to cover up that tattoo, "lest men think that she is, in fact, a 'hoe [sic],'?"And then you denigrate Cruiser by suggesting that he wasn't bright enough to come up with that on his own? Well done, Ayatollah. Bravo. Let's insist that all women wear modest dress, burkas, hijabs and the like. Are you sexist? I don't know, but it sure seems that way.


The reason parents admonish their children not to judge a book by its cover is because human beings are hard wired to make almost instantaneous judgments based on initial impression, and hard wired to be resistant to changing that impression regardless of the evidence. It is simply a fact that personal presentation (clothing/grooming/body stance/voice etc.) is important, not because one presentation is inherently "better" than another, but because some presentations lead to positive judgments while others do not.

While many NBA players and their acolytes love their tattoos, to most people seeing a tattoo leads to a negative first impression; whether displaying a tattoo is positive or negative depends on the viewer. Like you,I am an attorney and I have advised witnesses, clients, and anyone accompanying clients to court on their presentation. The most effective presentation of course depends on the judge or jury. Simply put one plays to the audience. In Dearborn, Michigan a hijab might well be positive in giving that first impression, in Toledo, Ohio it would not.

It is simply a fact that many men associate women with tattoos with women with loose morals. That these men make such an association does not make it "right", but at the same time there are consequences in triggering such associations. To not be aware of such associations is ignorance, to know of them and ignore them is either foolhardy or foolish.

I do not care what women wear however I do care if my daughter makes a negative first impression_ if the consequences of that impression are meaningful to her._ There is quite a difference in making a negative first impression at a job interview and making a negative first impression at a restaurant while on vacation. The former has meaningful consequences while the latter does not. It is part of a father's job to advise his children how to avoid negative consequences beginning with don't stick your fingers in the light socket and don't run into the street. Yes, I believe that if his daughter has a tattoo, every father should advise her, that many will look at her and draw a negative first impression, and she should cover it up unless she is either willing to accept the consequences of giving that negative first impression or she is going to be in the company of those who look upon tattoos favorably.

Dr. Libourel's supposition that Cruiser would not think to advise his daughter to cover her tattoo may have come from two factors. First, because Cruiser went so far as to announce his daughter's tattoo to an international audience, and secondly because the bedrock of Cruiser's theory of presentation is that people should present themselves as they please in slob wear or otherwise. It seems to me to have been a reasonable supposition.

Earlier in this thread, although I had not addressed you, without provocation you questioned my maturity, my reading comprehension, and my understanding. Dr. Libourel has called you a stupid fool. Whether this is true or whether you gave him sufficient provocation are things every man must decide for himself. Nevertheless, the rest of your response (which I have not quoted) is not tit for tat; it is a hyperbolic escalation than can only be described as vicious. In your response you call our profession, yours and mine, "honorable". Alas, it is a term that cannot be applied to your response.


----------



## jackmccullough

TMMKC said:


> Wow...Jack...good to hear from you.


Thanks! I haven't been around much lately. Honestly, one of the reasons was that I had gotten kind of worn down by the tone in The Interchange.

Plus ca change!

Still, it's nice to see and hear from you, too.


----------



## arkirshner

Orsini said:


> You got too much time on your hands.


True, with an explanation.

This year after an absence I returned to this forum only to find that the AAAC Golden Age has passed. From that period I recall Dr. Libourel as one of the most knowledgeable, friendly, and gracious men I have ever encountered. As an aside, when a long time friend who makes his own bullets and has designed ranges for competitions at Camp Perry, found out I had exchanged posts with him, even though they were about clothing, he was quite impressed.

It is evident that this thread is merely an aftershock of the 3 roll 2 - slob wear eruption. Reading these threads I found myself sequentially appalled, ticked off and finally smiling at the black humor and irony of an attack by the barbarians, led by Cruiser upon the gentlemen, led by Michael Anton and Dr. Libourel.

Coming upon this thread, once again I found the disciples of Cruiser aligned against Dr. Libourel. Of course he is a man who can not only defend himself but also take it to the other side. Of course it is only the followers of Cruiser, referred to by Manton as the Arby men, on the other side, not the Army of Santa Anna, and thus there is no heroism and little merit in opposing them, and although I know my participation makes no difference, I feel like putting my feet on one side of what seems to be a line drawn in the sand.

I am disappointed that first Cruiser, and now a couple of his supporters, have managed to push Dr. Libourel's buttons and so I though it worthwhile to spend at least this evening's too much time on my hands in expressing my solidarity with Dr. Libourel by responding in a somewhat cooler manner to those attacking him. I consider this to have been time well spent.


----------



## Orsini

arkirshner said:


> True, with an explanation...


I promise to read this later but I gotta hit the rack. You guys burn off a lot of cycles doing this...


----------



## Haffman

arkirshner said:


> This year after an absence I returned to this forum only to find that the AAAC Golden Age has passed...
> 
> Coming upon this thread, once again I found the disciples of Cruiser aligned against Dr. Libourel...


Its an amusingly melodramatic image...the 'disciples of Crusier'...each perhaps decked out in jeans, black dress shirt, black suit jacket (not a 3 roll 2 in sight naturally), an Arby burger in one hand, a Mickey mouse watch in the other...

...but no, from what I can see the majority of posters speaking up for Cruiser are saying that they may not have agreed with him, but that some of the conduct towards him and personal venom still expressed is shocking and sad to see.

I hope it was not a common feature of the 'Golden Age' to be so boorish as to refer to ANY women as 'cheap sluts'. By linking this to tattoos, on a public forum, as well as being boorish one inevitably runs the risk of hurting someone whose daughter happens to have a tattoo. Cruiser's apparently does, I am sure he loves his daughter, and naturally rose to speak in her defence and was also not surprisingly hurt in the whole exchange. Surely the gentleman would see that offence was caused, that it was understandable, that the whole subject under discussion (women with tattoos being 'sluts') was imbecilic anyway, and would apologize and redrirect the conversation back to fine clothing and style. A gentleman would certainly not refer to the matter that caused hurt again.

If a level of repartee that involved the use of "cheap sluts" and "hoes" (sic) characterized the Golden Age, give me Babylon any day.


----------



## jpeirpont

eagle2250 said:


> How ironic it is that your comments are so inconsistent with your signature line (the Alexander Crummell qotation)..."Let our posterity know that we their ancestors, uncultured and unlearned, were men of integrity." How do statements that seem to denigrate one's character because of how one dresses or advocates dressing, square with that? Prejudice comes in many guises, Sir. Just thinkin! :icon_scratch:


Indeed, I am quite prejudice with one who comes to a forum about clothes and constantly remarks about how "nice" clothes don't matter. I found him boorish and annoying - fine reasons to dislike a man. Mr.Crummell I'm sure would agree.


----------



## Bjorn

JLibourel said:


> "No woman should have to cover herself in the presence of gentlemen"? Is the converse of this true? Can I run out buck-naked into the midst of a bunch of ladies?
> 
> Fathers' telling their daughters to cover up their tattoos is "appalling"?
> 
> Do you or have you ever had an adolescent daughter? I thought just about every parent (more commonly the mother) tells her daughter at some point, "You're NOT going out looking like THAT!"
> 
> But maybe things are different in Sweden.


I don't have a daughter, true. And I can concede that I could have opinions in what she would wear, although I would probably not give them to raise/lower her perceived sexual availability, which is (again) a little creepy.

The view on tattoos must be very different in some parts of America though. In Sweden tattoos are quite common.

Interesting... I hope this little sideline does not encourage further defection from the forum. That would be a shame.

Have read here for a couple of years and have always found very interesting topics (about clothes that is).


----------



## Chouan

El_Abogado said:


> Any man who uttered "hoe" in reference to another man's daughter has Providence to thank for his continued existence. In this case, it was Providence and Cruiser that the man should thank. . . . Your maturity isn't what you think it is, nor is your reading comprehension or understanding of the facts as set forth in the thread in question.


Why would calling somebody a gardening implement be such a bad thing? I suppose "spade" has some racial implications, but "fork", or "rake", or "trowel", or "hoe" doesn't seem to be particularly insulting?


----------



## Bjorn

I volunteer to be a rake. Keep you daughters and wives away.


----------



## Haffman

Chouan said:


> Why would calling somebody a gardening implement be such a bad thing? I suppose "spade" has some racial implications, but "fork", or "rake", or "trowel", or "hoe" doesn't seem to be particularly insulting?


Hoe hoe hoe!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> Why would calling somebody a gardening implement be such a bad thing? I suppose "spade" has some racial implications, but "fork", or "rake", or "trowel", or "hoe" doesn't seem to be particularly insulting?


Hoe = Whore in Urbanese


----------



## arkirshner

Bjorn said:


> I volunteer to be a rake. Keep you daughters and wives away.


LOL....


----------



## arkirshner

Haffman said:


> If a level of repartee that involved the use of "cheap sluts" and "hoes" (sic) characterized the Golden Age, give me Babylon any day.


It did not, and that's the shame. Actually, if one is interested in reasoned discussions of clothing I refer you to the threads before 2008. (that is not to say all threads thereafter were food fights as is this one) The search engine will uncover " Golden Age" threads on most topics of interest and these threads can be a great source for learning about the history, details, and application of the Anglo American tradition of men's clothing, whereas many of today's threads are merely posts along the lines of "I like this" or "I don't like that." Unfortunately reading old threads is not a participatory pastime.

I chuckled a your terming my phrase "disciples of Crusier" a "melodramatic image", and smiled at your flushing out an image of black shirts with Arbys. Such good humor as you exhibit was typical of the Golden Age but now sorely lacking.

Your other observations deserve a response but I must go to work now.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

arkirshner said:


> (1 ) Some men think women with visible tattoos are "hoes".
> Jezebel has a tattoo
> 
> Which of the following are true?
> 
> A All men think Jezebel is a hoe
> 
> B Jezebel is a hoe
> 
> C Jezebel is not a hoe
> 
> D Jezebel might be a hoe
> 
> E Some men think Jezebel is a hoe


Thank for the instructive SAT flashback!!


----------



## Haffman

Apatheticviews said:


> Hoe = Whore in Urbanese


I cant believe I'm writing this but the proper spelling of the slang is taken to be ho' since whore is not spelt whoere. The plural is nevertheless hoes. Hoe as we all know is a garden implement. You see both spellings of this horrible word bandied about and as it's slang there is no right answer, but ho' appears more correct. Hence the joke I presume...


----------



## Titus_A

> Let's insist that all women wear modest dress, burkas, hijabs and the like.


This is an absurd and illogical lumping together. A skirt suit is the equivalent of a burka? Hardly.

That said, a pox on both your houses. So a man who conducted himself as a boor, and incited others to do likewise---even, judging by this thread, in conversations to which he was not a party---no longer writes messages on a particular internet board. The heavens will not fall. The hand-wringing, navel-gazing, and name-calling is far more absurd and undignified than any past exchange of epithets or veiled insults.



Haffman said:


> I cant believe I'm writing this but the proper spelling of the slang is taken to be ho' since whore is not spelt whoere.


Or simply "ho." But your analysis is entirely correct.


----------



## Bjorn

Haffman said:


> I cant believe I'm writing this but the proper spelling of the slang is taken to be ho' since whore is not spelt whoere. The plural is nevertheless hoes. Hoe as we all know is a garden implement. You see both spellings of this horrible word bandied about and as it's slang there is no right answer, but ho' appears more correct. Hence the joke I presume...


In Sweden, the common garden hoe is typically manufactured in green.

*holds his breath*


----------



## El_Abogado

arkirshner said:


> The reason parents admonish their children not to judge a book by its cover. . .


I have three daughters. I would not want any of them to have tatoos. But I will not publicly judge another man or his daughter online for her choice of body art. And if I did and I offended that man, I would apologize. The gunwriter lacks the ability to see when he has offended someone and is unable or unwilling to apologize for the offense. Shame on him and you.



arkirshner said:


> Earlier in this thread, although I had not addressed you, without provocation you questioned my maturity, my reading comprehension, and my understanding. . .
> * * *
> 
> . . . Alas, it is a term that cannot be applied to your response.


You said "Cruiser is lucky, Andrew Jackson killed a man for less." What a curious, curious statement, counselor. Jackson was a man of the late 18th Century and early 19th Century, a man who vindicated his honor by the code duello. Why is it that we no longer duel, counselor? Because it is uncivilized and murder. Don't we have courts and lawyers to resolve disputes without resorting to violence? So what is it you meant with your statement? That Cruiser is lucky that the gunwriter didn't resort to violence and commit murder or assault to avenge his honor?

Certainly, the gunwriter offended Cruiser's honor, by insulting him and implying that Cruiser's daughter was a "hoe [sic]." Have you acknowledged this yet? To keep with your duelling theme, Cruiser's proper response would have been to have beat the gunwriter, or have his servants do so, as is proper when one is offended by another of a lower class.

One last point: I am no disciple of Cruiser. Many times I have disagreed with his views and I have even sparred with him on this forum. I am a disciple of decency and fair play and I was offended at the gunwriter and his straphangers piling on to criticize a man that I didn't agree with much but respected.



JLibourel said:


> Give some specifics about this shooting event where I was so pompous and obese. The more I think about it, the more I think you are just a flat-out liar, something that some would say comes easily to your "honorable profession." At least I fly under my own colors. I have no idea whether you are in fact a lawyer or anything else you claim to be. I was unaware that "shyster" had anti-semitic connotations. If so, I apologize for its use.


It was 2000 in the southwest and you were one of a handful of gunwriters in for the day or so. I do not lie and I do not believe I am mistaken in my recollection. I believe as well we may have crossed paths at SHOT in Las Vegas, though I am not as confident of my recollections. Feel free to question who I am or what I do. For reasons of PERSEC, I'm not giving out much more information online, but there are other ways to establish bona fides. Give Bob Brown a call. . . .

Shyster is a racist, anti-semitic term. Google it. If you want to use a perjorative term, try "ambulance chaser." Ignorance of the term's meaning is no excuse. And while I am an attorney, I'm not jewish. Doubtless there are some here on AAAC and I'm sure they've taken note of your language. . . You ought to think about apologizing to Cruiser for the indirect assertion that his daughter was a "hoe [sic]."


----------



## El_Abogado

Kurt N said:


> . . . .Sometimes [REDACTED FOR OPSEC].


Great post, Kurt.


----------



## Kurt N

^ And now I just deleted it--thinking I was probably saying things people didn't need to be told! Second time that's happened in this thread. Since you quoted, here it is:

Just for a little perspective: anyone who has spent time on the other forum knows (no, I will not link!) that the clothing experts and enthusiasts who gave up on this one because Cruiser drove them up the wall have not entirely left their troubles behind. There have been nasty arguments, huffy departures, returns, and expressions of irritation about how things aren't what they used to be.

I'm not making any claims about the relative overall quality of the two forums (fora?), past or present, so please let's not go there. I'm just trying to offer a bit of a counterweight to the current of sentiment that things would have been so, so much better here if only Cruiser hadn't ruined everything. Where two or more are gathered in the name of anything they care about, there will be discontent, unfortunately. And as I think eagle2250 observed, it's in the nature of communities to evolve over time. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes for the worse, some changes are permanent and others only temporary--but it's how things are, not something to blame on any one person.


----------



## El_Abogado

*Wait!*

I redacted my post, so as to be respectful of your decision to delete! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kurt N

:icon_smile_big: I really need to just sit on my hands for a while.


----------



## Haffman

arkirshner said:


> It did not, and that's the shame. Actually, if one is interested in reasoned discussions of clothing I refer you to the threads before 2008. (that is not to say all threads thereafter were food fights as is this one) The search engine will uncover " Golden Age" threads on most topics of interest and these threads can be a great source for learning about the history, details, and application of the Anglo American tradition of men's clothing, whereas many of today's threads are merely posts along the lines of "I like this" or "I don't like that." Unfortunately reading old threads is not a participatory pastime.
> 
> I chuckled a your terming my phrase "disciples of Crusier" a "melodramatic image", and smiled at your flushing out an image of black shirts with Arbys. Such good humor as you exhibit was typical of the Golden Age but now sorely lacking.
> 
> Your other observations deserve a response but I must go to work now.


Thanks! I can also say that I have greatly enjoyed and learned a lot from the high quality discussions on this forum, even in those years before I plucked up the courage to post on AAAC myself (English reserve...). I still have lots to learn, so I hope we can continue to discuss and critique, and hopefully have a laugh, long into the future...


----------



## ada8356

I would like to see this entire thread deleted.


----------



## Peak and Pine

And I would like to delete about a third of my life, but that's the easy way out.

Let it stand. True, it's a seamy slice of life, but it has personality and has become a field guide to the true nature of many of those posting here.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

ada8356 said:


> I would like to see this entire thread deleted.


And I would like to make shirts for Beau Brummel. Neither will be happening.

Peak: Do tell! Which 1/3? :devil:


----------



## Acct2000

Actually, Alex, I hear Beau has been a lot less fussy about his shirts for the last 160 years or so. He might not be hard to work with!!


----------



## Racer

I like pie. It's much better than cake.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

I notice we have two attorneys arguing over the correct slang version of whore. 

Is that Tart Reform?


----------



## eagle2250

jpeirpont said:


> Indeed, I am quite prejudice with one who comes to a forum about clothes and constantly remarks about how "nice" clothes don't matter. I found him boorish and annoying - fine reasons to dislike a man. Mr.Crummell I'm sure would agree.


Should you try applying your intellect rather than your prejudice when reading Cruiser's postings, you might realize that Cruiser never said "nice clothes don't matter!" Rather, he frequently stated and restated and restated and restated() that people across the board enjoy a rather broad spectrum of clothing styles and that ones specific preferences for such did not define his/her character. He also objected to the oft claimed perversion expressed or insinuated, repeatedly in these fora, that the cost of a man's clothes or other possessions in some perverse manner makes him better (or worse) than others. That is snobbery and snobbery, sir, is a very ugly expression of prejudice. We do seem to have more snobs in our midst than we care to admit!


----------



## Acct2000

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I notice we have two attorneys arguing over the correct slang version of whore.
> 
> Is that Tart Reform?


If I were a drummer, I'd have to reward that with an official rim shot!!!


----------



## Acct2000

eagle2250 said:


> Should you try applying your intellect rather than your prejudice when reading Cruiser's postings, you might realize that Cruiser never said "nice clothes don't matter!" Rather, he frequently stated and restated and restated and restated() that people across the board enjoy a rather broad spectrum of clothing styles and that ones specific preferences for such did not define his/her character. He also objected to the oft claimed perversion expressed or insinuated, repeatedly in these fora, that the cost of a man's clothes or other possessions in some perverse manner makes him better (or worse) than others. That is snobbery and snobbery, sir, is a very ugly expression of prejudice. We do seem to have more snobs in our midst than we care to admit!


+1

I can only hope most of these folks are trolling. I cringe to think that so many people who like clothing would really be that shallow. I would hope not.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

eagle2250 said:


> We do seem to have more snobs in our midst than we care to admit!


Ya don't say!

Admit, hell. I would be more inclined to shout it from the rooftops. Perhaps then some in their lofty perches might even hear.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

eagle2250 said:


> That is snobbery and snobbery, sir, is a very ugly expression of prejudice.


Until Slobs become a protected class under statute, let the ugly predjudice continue!!


----------



## Acct2000

UMMMMM And a slob is - - - - -

anyone who does not think like you, dress like you, or most importantly - - - dress as expensively as you?????


The term Igent is not used much on our board and is not a compliment. It does a good job of describing a lot of what goes on in the clothing forums, though. I hope people are smart enough not to talk in the affected way a lot of people do on these boards in real life.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I hope people are smart enough not to talk in the affected way a lot of people do on these boards in real life.


I see you've never read _The Suit_.


----------



## jamesensor

Racer said:


> I like pie. It's much better than cake.


This + 1


----------



## Acct2000

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I see you've never read _The Suit_.


No. Unless my circumstances change dramatically, the small amount of clothes I own will just include very basic stuff.


----------



## LoneWolf

forsbergacct2000 said:


> .... I hope people are smart enough not to talk in the affected way a lot of people do on these boards in real life.


One regrets to impart, Old Sport, that one has no knowledge of that to which you are referring. As you were, chaps; one must retire to consider one's position along the Slop/Snob Continum and adjust one's manner and dress as would be deemed necessary. Pip, pip!


----------



## Bjorn

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I notice we have two attorneys arguing over the correct slang version of whore.
> 
> Is that Tart Reform?


It's a suit


----------



## WouldaShoulda

forsbergacct2000 said:


> UMMMMM And a slob is - - - - -


Like porn, it's difficult to define, but one knows it when one sees it!!


----------



## eagle2250

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Ya don't say!
> 
> Admit, hell. I would be more inclined to shout it from the rooftops. Perhaps then some in their lofty perches might even hear.


LOL. Alex, you have put me in the difficult() position of having to say/type something that makes me feel about as uncomfortable as I do on those rare occasions in which I find myself in agreement with Peak and Pine; you are a master at what you do...and I am not just speaking of your gift for designing and crafting those marvelous shirts for which you are noted. Rather and in spite of yourself, at your core, you are a diplomat and (wait for it...) one of the good guys! I do hope you are happy with what you have wrought. Now I shall surely be termed a sycophant at best and an a** kisser, at worst, by the Cyber-overlords, of whom we shall not speak! 



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I see you've never read _The Suit_.


...but therein lies the root of my dilemma. I have read The Suit...and enjoyed it greatly. Writing such within a framework consistent within the Machiavellian perspective was a stroke of near literary genius. Kudos to Nicholas Antongiavanni. Over the years I read countless articles and op-ed pieces written by Jan Libourel and have been a 'by gawd' fan of his writing for years. I put these guys on a pedestal based on their writing in the real world and then perhaps gain a more genuine and less complimentary perspective of the individuals, based on their abusive and decidedly coarse responses, delivered most often, when opinions they offer herein are questioned by one of us mere mortals!


----------



## El_Abogado

eagle2250 said:


> Now I shall surely be termed a sycophant at best and an a** kisser, at worst, by the Cyber-overlords, of whom we shall not speak!


Or, worse: a "disciple.":biggrin2:



eagle2250 said:


> I put these guys on a pedestal based on their writing in the real world and then perhaps gain a more genuine and less complimentary perspective of the individuals, based on their abusive and decidedly coarse responses, delivered most often, when opinions they offer herein are questioned by one of us mere mortals!


Eagle, brother, none of their ilk are any more immortal than you or I. And having spent a fair amount of time around gunwriters, weapons and tactics trainers, and operators, many times the "best" of the gunwriters out there don't know what they're talking about. And the rest of them are even more uneducated. Regarding the subjects of this forum, Alex and many others here do. . . . And they are why I come here to learn, inspite of the boors.

Kudos, Alex, for your thoughtfulness and your diplomacy.


----------



## Peak and Pine

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Alex, you have put me in the difficult() position of having to say/type something that makes me feel about as uncomfortable as I do on those rare occasions in which I find myself in agreement with Peak and Pine...


Back-handed and begrudging as that is, I'll take a shout out where ever I can get it.


----------



## El_Abogado

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Alex, you have put me in the difficult() position of having to say/type something that makes me feel about as uncomfortable as I do on those rare occasions in which I find myself in agreement with Peak and Pine. . .


Peak, I dont' get it. You both seem like reasonable men.


----------



## JLibourel

El_Abogado said:


> Certainly, the gunwriter offended Cruiser's honor, by insulting him and implying that Cruiser's daughter was a "hoe [sic]." Have you acknowledged this yet? To keep with your duelling theme, Cruiser's proper response would have been to have beat the gunwriter, or have his servants do so, as is proper when one is offended by another of a lower class.


If you think I implied that Cruiser's daughter was a "hoe" in the notorious post #80, then I am rather surprised that you even managed to pass the bar! Never once did I impugn the virtue or character of that girl! All I implied--and this was based on a consensus in the thread on tattooed women--that men are more likely to think of girls who flaunt tattoos as "hoes." This does not imply that all all tattooed girls are hoes. (In fact, these days tattoos are so ubiquitous I doubt if they signify anything at all!) I strongly suspect that whores, the real-deal kind, are still more likely to be tattooed than "straight girls." Saying that somebody "looks like" something is not the same as saying they "are" something. I have sometimes told my stepson, when he is running around bare-chested with his jeans near crotch-level, that he looks like a gay whore, even though I know full well that he is neither gay nor a whore.



> It was 2000 in the southwest and you were one of a handful of gunwriters in for the day or so. I do not lie and I do not believe I am mistaken in my recollection. I believe as well we may have crossed paths at SHOT in Las Vegas, though I am not as confident of my recollections. Feel free to question who I am or what I do. For reasons of PERSEC, I'm not giving out much more information online, but there are other ways to establish bona fides. Give Bob Brown a call. . . .


Oho, the story changes! First I was the lazy fat man who screwed around for a full week at a competition for "hunters of men." Now we crossed paths at a one-day event! I thought counselors advised their clients to keep their stories straight. I am pretty sure that I did not attend any shooting events that year aside from (maybe) the Steel Challenge and the End of Trail, certainly nothing outside Southern California. And how fat was I supposed to be? Perhaps compared to a lean, mean fighting machine like yourself...but compared to the vast majority of men, I have never been considered particularly fat. I am not particularly interested in your identity or bonafides. Is this a case of "If I told you what I do, I'd have to kill you!"?



> Shyster is a racist, anti-semitic term. Google it. If you want to use a perjorative term, try "ambulance chaser." Ignorance of the term's meaning is no excuse. And while I am an attorney, I'm not jewish. Doubtless there are some here on AAAC and I'm sure they've taken note of your language. . . You ought to think about apologizing to Cruiser for the indirect assertion that his daughter was a "hoe [sic]."


Funny, I just researched the matter yesterday evening and every source I saw said that it originated in New York in the 1840s. The actual etymology is uncertain, but it certainly carried no particular anti-semitic stigma. The notion that it is anti-semitic comes from a fallacious etymology deriving it from "Shylock," that and the fact that it sound vaguely Yiddish. Some commentators likened this to the African-American city council members who took great umbrage at an official's use of the word "niggardly."


----------



## Acct2000

LoneWolf said:


> One regrets to impart, Old Sport, that one has no knowledge of that to which you are referring. As you were, chaps; one must retire to consider one's position along the Slop/Snob Continum and adjust one's manner and dress as would be deemed necessary. Pip, pip!


Not bad for a first attempt at Igent mimickry!!!


----------



## Acct2000

eagle2250 said:


> Now I shall surely be termed a sycophant at best and an a** kisser, at worst, by the Cyber-overlords, of whom we shall not speak!
> 
> !


Beware, Beware Eagle!!! You may upset the gods of inanity determination!!!!


----------



## triklops55

GrumF14 said:


> I agree wholeheartedly. Cruiser reminds us that we can still look pretty darn good, even without the bespoke route. Even a suit from JC Penney can look good if it fits right and is tailored properly, and a bespoke suit can look awful if it doesn't fit right. All in the details and the confidence.





Flanderian said:


> Not exactly what I had in mind. That might be stretching things a bit.


What I tell everyone is that you can look good even if you buy your entire wardrobe at JC Penny. I woudn't recommend it, but it's possible. The amount of money a guy has, or doesn't have, to spend on clothes shouldn't discourage one from trying to look good.

I've seen guys spend a fortune on clothes just to look like the biggest fools in the room.


----------



## Racer

Hitler always had such nicely-pressed uniforms. He certainly impressed the Duke of Windsor with his sartorial splendor! Hitler must have had a great dry cleaner. How come there's never been a biography about Hitler's dry cleaner?


----------



## Kurt N

Everyone qualified to write it had pressing things to attend to.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Eagle: Thank you for your kind words. I have no fear that Eagle and sycophant will ever be used in the same sentence.
Michael Anton's incomparably talented use of Machiavelli's _Art of War_ framework in constructing _The Suit_ is undeniable. I use "construction" advisedly for I find _The Suit _to be more constructed around a framework than written around a theme. Having "been around" during the construction of the book, I find its rigidity of opinion in all manners sartorial somewhat offensive. Discussing clothing as objects rather than manifestations of personality within, of course, the bounds of societal acceptance, is akin to specifying exactly which color is "the best".

EA: Don't fret. Eagle is reasonable. Peak is reasonable. It just depends upon what your definition of "is" is.

Jan: I recently heard that you don't like Cruiser. Is this really true?


----------



## Peak and Pine

JLibourel said:


> I have sometimes told my stepson... that he looks like a gay whore.


"Billy, how come you never visit us anymore?"


----------



## Peak and Pine

El_Abogado said:


> Peak, I dont' get it. You both seem like reasonable men.


One of us is. The other was in the Air Force.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Gosh Peak, I know I am reasonable but, I didn't realize you were in the USAF? LOL. We need to get together and have a reunion...or something...maybe even a "dust-up!" 

PS: My gut is hurting from laughing at that "Billy, how come you never come to visit us any more?" comment of yours. One of your best for sure! :thumbs-up:


----------



## eagle2250

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Beware, Beware Eagle!!! You may upset the gods of inanity determination!!!!


LOL. These days it's really just a toss up between whether it will be "the gods of inanity" or those 'really nice men in the crisp white coats' who are the first to come get me! We have three of our five grandkids visiting this weekend...I think the men in the white coats may have an edge? :crazy:


----------



## JLibourel

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Jan: I recently heard that you don't like Cruiser. Is this really true?


Yes and no, Alex. He's sort of the Man We Love to Hate. I always liken him the villain in professional wrestling. He did liven things up, especially before he became the doyen of the forum.


----------



## Acct2000

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. These days it's really just a toss up between whether it will be "the gods of inanity" or those 'really nice men in the crisp white coats' who are the first to come get me! We have three of our five grandkids visiting this weekend...I think the men in the white coats may have an edge? :crazy:


But think of the calories you will burn!!! Since we ARE on AAAC will the white coats be dinner jackets? Maybe you'll be time-travelled to a dinner with Peter Lorre in a 1940s movie. (Hopefully it will be a setting with good refrigeration so you are not stuck with warm beer.)


----------



## Acct2000

Peak and Pine said:


> "Billy, how come you never visit us anymore?"


Being a gay whore is really humbling; it's hard to face people from your past after you cross the line. I've heard that in a couple of the wilder clubs where I've played, you know.


----------



## El_Abogado

JLibourel said:


> If you think I implied that Cruiser's daughter was a "hoe [sic]" in the notorious post #80, then I am rather surprised that you even managed to pass the bar!


More than one bar, gunwriter. And by "pass", I mean obtain a qualifying score, not abstain from drink. By your logic, then, Cruiser did not imply that your wife was a gold-digging slut. You have repeated the assertion that he impugned your wife's "honor", while vociferously denying that you did the same. Jan Libourel, you impugned Cruiser's daughter's honor. Again, I am suggesting to you that you need to man up and admit what you've done. It diminishes you and the forum when you deny so strenuously your error.



JLibourel said:


> Saying that somebody "looks like" something is not the same as saying they "are" something. I have sometimes told my stepson, when he is running around bare-chested with his jeans near crotch-level, that he looks like a gay whore, even though I know full well that he is neither gay nor a whore.


"Looks like" versus "are"? That's a distinction without a difference. As for your stepson and what you call him, that's between you, your wife and your stepson. Personally, I can't imagine ever referring to any child or stepchild of mine as a "whore", nor would I refer to their sexual orientation in a way that might suggest that I thought less of the child because of it. But that's your business, not mine. Except to say, Jan, do you remember Jim Zumbo? He liked making bold statements too. How's he doing?



JLibourel said:


> Oho, the story changes! First I was the lazy fat man who screwed around for a full week at a competition for "hunters of men." Now we crossed paths at a one-day event!


I was there for the week. And I never said it was a one-day event. I did say that I remembered the handful of gunwriters who attended coming in "for a day or so." I said as well that it is my recollection that you were among that group. As for being a "lazy fat man who screwed around for a full week", it was my recollection that you only showed for a day or two at most. Further, I stated that your pomposity was exceeded only by your girth. I also said that "you had neither the physical conditioning nor the training to fully comprehend and relate to your readers the activities that you only occasionally attended that week." Your inability to accurately recount statements that are easily checked reflects poorly on your writing as a professional, Jan.



JLibourel said:


> I am not particularly interested in your identity or bonafides. Is this a case of "If I told you what I do, I'd have to kill you!"?


You've questioned my profession, Jan. I've suggested that you contact someone you should know to confirm that I am indeed an attorney. I do not appreciate your questioning my profession. If you are unwilling to accept my offer of bona fides, then I suggest you retract those public doubts. I will not dignify the second sentence above with a response. . .



JLibourel said:


> Funny, I just researched the matter yesterday evening and every source I saw said that it originated in New York in the 1840s. The actual etymology is uncertain, but it certainly carried no particular anti-semitic stigma. The notion that it is anti-semitic comes from a fallacious etymology deriving it from "Shylock," that and the fact that it sound vaguely Yiddish. Some commentators likened this to the African-American city council members who took great umbrage at an official's use of the word "niggardly."


Chrysler CEO apologizes for using 'shyster'. Jan, a term of derision for lawyers that many view as a term of derision for jewish lawyers is not on the same plane as word that means "stingy" but that sounds like a deeply offensive racist word. Niggardly has not been used to demean African-Americans. Shyster has been used to demean Jewish professionals and lawyers in particular. And just because the Straight Dope Forum says otherwise, that doesn't make you right. You should apologize again and stop defending your use of the word.


----------



## El_Abogado

Peak and Pine said:


> One of us is. The other was in the Air Force.


Oh, I see. Sorry to hear that!



eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> PS: My gut is hurting from laughing at that "Billy, how come you never come to visit us any more?" comment of yours. One of your best for sure! :thumbs-up:


Seriously. Perhaps the most clever, humorous post I've read on AAAC, Peak. Brilliant.


----------



## eagle2250

^^

El Abogado (and Peak): Perhaps a "not so' interesting aside is...that many, many years ago, I almost ended up in the Army! :crazy: During my senior year of high school I was competing for appointments to the Service Academies and ROTC scholarships, offered by each of our military services. After the dust from that effort settled, I was holding an offer of an appointment to West Point and the Merchant Marine Academy, an offer of an alternate appointment (alt #1154, as I recall) to the Air Force Academy and ROTC scholarship offers from the Army and the Air Force. As part of the process, the Air Force sent me to McGuire AFB, NJ, for a flight physical and to complete a physical aptitude exam. Reporting to McGuire also afforded me the opportunity to get a look at Fort Dix, NJ. While McGuire had red brick barracks with four man rooms and real beds, manicured, green grassed areas, etc., the Fort Dix side of the fence featured corrugated steel quonset huts, housing each soldier, assigned in an open bay with 50 of his closest buddies and sleeping on cots with a 3" mattress (that is not a mattress!); pea gravel everywhere (I am telling you, there was no grass!:crazy and dust...lot's and lots of dust! 

To make a long(er) story short, this child of god was built for comfort and I just knew I would look more desirable to the women if I was wearing a flight suit, rather than a set of OD's. So...I declined the Academy offers and attended the Pennsylvania State University on an Air Force ROTC scholarship...and lo, the rest is history. These many years later, here I sit in front of a computer keyboard, (LOL) naught but a blight on society at this point!


----------



## Andy

Just back from a great internet retailer's convention in San Diego and I see once again I'm late to the party!

Here's the history: I had more than usual problem with one of Cruiser's off-the-wall posts and discussed it with him and then imposed an infraction. But when I did the infraction I inadvertently banned him (my fault)! 

I then corrected the error (a day or so later). But by this time he was angry at me and told me "&#8230;I'm not going to post on your forum&#8230;"

I know he has his champions here, but this was fine with me since (in my opinion) Cruiser has not contributed positively to the Forum. He has filled the role of "class clown" which was probably not his intent. And for me, that got old quickly and his posts have become irritating.

He didn't have any interest in learning, but just imposing his judgment on us.

Again the last bit is just my opinion, which is often and usually wrong! :icon_smile:

And I'd rather be a snob than a slob! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## arkirshner

Andy said:


> Just back from a great internet retailer's convention in San Diego and I see once again I'm late to the party!
> 
> Here's the history: I had more than usual problem with one of Cruiser's off-the-wall posts and discussed it with him and then imposed an infraction. But when I did the infraction I inadvertently banned him (my fault)!
> 
> I then corrected the error (a day or so later). But by this time he was angry at me and told me "&#8230;I'm not going to post on your forum&#8230;"
> 
> I know he has his champions here, but this was fine with me since (in my opinion) Cruiser has not contributed positively to the Forum. He has filled the role of "class clown" which was probably not his intent. And for me, that got old quickly and his posts have become irritating.
> 
> He didn't have any interest in learning, but just imposing his judgment on us.
> 
> Again the last bit is just my opinion, which is often and usually wrong! :icon_smile:
> 
> And I'd rather be a snob than a slob! :icon_smile_big:


"Let the Healing Begin"

Music and lyrics by Tony Joe White

Performed by Joe Cocker


----------



## JLibourel

El_Abogado said:


> More than one bar, gunwriter. And by "pass", I mean obtain a qualifying score, not abstain from drink. By your logic, then, Cruiser did not imply that your wife was a gold-digging slut. You have repeated the assertion that he impugned your wife's "honor", while vociferously denying that you did the same. Jan Libourel, you impugned Cruiser's daughter's honor. Again, I am suggesting to you that you need to man up and admit what you've done. It diminishes you and the forum when you deny so strenuously your error.
> 
> "Looks like" versus "are"? That's a distinction without a difference. As for your stepson and what you call him, that's between you, your wife and your stepson. Personally, I can't imagine ever referring to any child or stepchild of mine as a "whore", nor would I refer to their sexual orientation in a way that might suggest that I thought less of the child because of it. But that's your business, not mine. Except to say, Jan, do you remember Jim Zumbo? He liked making bold statements too. How's he doing?
> 
> I was there for the week. And I never said it was a one-day event. I did say that I remembered the handful of gunwriters who attended coming in "for a day or so." I said as well that it is my recollection that you were among that group. As for being a "lazy fat man who screwed around for a full week", it was my recollection that you only showed for a day or two at most. Further, I stated that your pomposity was exceeded only by your girth. I also said that "you had neither the physical conditioning nor the training to fully comprehend and relate to your readers the activities that you only occasionally attended that week." Your inability to accurately recount statements that are easily checked reflects poorly on your writing as a professional, Jan.
> 
> You've questioned my profession, Jan. I've suggested that you contact someone you should know to confirm that I am indeed an attorney. I do not appreciate your questioning my profession. If you are unwilling to accept my offer of bona fides, then I suggest you retract those public doubts. I will not dignify the second sentence above with a response. . .
> 
> Chrysler CEO apologizes for using 'shyster'. Jan, a term of derision for lawyers that many view as a term of derision for jewish lawyers is not on the same plane as word that means "stingy" but that sounds like a deeply offensive racist word. Niggardly has not been used to demean African-Americans. Shyster has been used to demean Jewish professionals and lawyers in particular. And just because the Straight Dope Forum says otherwise, that doesn't make you right. You should apologize again and stop defending your use of the word.


In the earlier post, you said I "only occasionally attended throughout the week" this event for "hunters of men." Now I was just up for one day. I have no recollection of this event. You have described me as hideous fat man (or nearly so). Frankly, at this point, I don't believe you ever even met me. I believe you are a liar, plain and simple. No wonder you have an affinity for Cruiser. You are even more obnoxious and pertinacious than he is.


----------



## StevenRocks

Andy said:


> I know he has his champions here, but this was fine with me since (in my opinion) Cruiser has not contributed positively to the Forum. He has filled the role of "class clown" which was probably not his intent. And for me, that got old quickly and his posts have become irritating.
> 
> He didn't have any interest in learning, but just imposing his judgment on us.
> 
> Again the last bit is just my opinion, which is often and usually wrong! :icon_smile:
> 
> And I'd rather be a snob than a slob! :icon_smile_big:


 Well put, Andy.


----------



## Saltydog

Wow! I usually enjoyed Cruiser's posts and often thought him to be a voice of reason in instances where a particular thread had gone awry. I often complimented his seemingly moderate influence and thought him to be well-spoken and articulate. We were about the same age, and he often brought a generational perpective that I found refreshing since we both grew up in the 50's and 60's when "trad" was basically what most men wore (some better than others). After going back and taking a look at some of the referred to "dust ups" he participated in, I'm wondering where I was when some of his more intemperate comments were made. Regardless, I enjoyed most of his writing--some of the stuff I've seen referred to here notwithstanding. 

At any rate, if I ever stop participating in the forum for whatever reason, I can only hope that my absence will generate 7 or more pages of commentary--minus some of the more venemous sentiments that his has spawned. Regardless, I think this is proof that he is indeed in self-imposed exile from our midst....since there is no way he would have let some of the more vicious attacks (deserved or not) go unanswered. 

Goodbye, Cruiser. We hardly knew ye. :confused2:


----------



## El_Abogado

Andy, thank you for maintaining this forum. I've learned much here. I must say that I am greatly disappointed to see that bigots and bullies take advantage of your kindness. I wanted you to know how much I appreciate your generousity.


----------



## Mazama

GrumF14 said:


> I agree wholeheartedly. Cruiser reminds us that we can still look pretty darn good, even without the bespoke route. Even a suit from JC Penney can look good if it fits right and is tailored properly, and a bespoke suit can look awful if it doesn't fit right. All in the details and the confidence.


This comment caused a flashback to a government/business meeting I was attending in Colorado circa 1977. One of the attendees, a locally well known attorney, expressed admiration for the navy blue pinstriped suit being worn by a mining company executive who happened to be British. The American attorney asked the Englishman if his suit had been made on Savile Row to which the Englishman replied simply, "No, I got it from J C Penny."

Never read any of the threads where Cruiser apparently made comments perceived to be irritating - as no doubt I have from time to time - but I do recall some very pithy remarks such as "Even Cary Grant didn't always dress like Cary Grant." And besides there's a large turnover in regular AAAC posters over time as people's interests and motivations change.


----------



## Orsini

*For He's a Jolly Good Fellow!*

All hail Andrew the Wise, for he has liberated us from oppression!

Orsini is breaking out the Manchesters and will buy drinks for any wardrobe geeks that show up at Hermosa Saloon starting in about 90 minutes!


----------



## Trip English

I'm glad that Cruiser's gone. He didn't belong here. He's not pro-clothing. He's not pro-style. He's not pro-anything concerning this forum. He may as well join a gastronomy forum and rack up 6,000 posts pointing out that sometimes a bowl of cereal is just fine.


----------



## Regillus

Trip English said:


> I'm glad that Cruiser's gone. He didn't belong here. He's not pro-clothing. He's not pro-style. He's not pro-anything concerning this forum. He may as well join a gastronomy forum and rack up 6,000 posts pointing out that sometimes a bowl of cereal is just fine.


+1. I agree completely. The main thing that bothered me about Cruiser was how he'd distract the conversation away from the clothes to something extraneous. His complaint about the cost of the recent royal wedding was a case in point. People wanted to talk about the clothes; not about how much it all cost. The steady refrain of "this cheaper stuff is just as good as this more expensive stuff" when it clearly wasn't was tiresome. He just didn't seem to get it (or care) that a higher quality of fabric; in certain colors; cut certain ways; and hand-stitched by life-long craftsmen using particular stitches was aesthetically superior to the mass-produced dross that passes for clothing at Walmart - and yes, such attention to quality costs more. The main reason I started reading AAAC was to learn about what styles/colors/fabrics went with what and how you were supposed to wear them (Half-inch cuff? One inch?) - that is; the Rules. Then Cruiser comes along with his "it's all relative" nonsense muddying up the waters. BTW I'm ordering "The Three-Piece Suit and Modern Masculinity" (Kuchta) next week which I would likely never have heard of without this web-site. I'm glad Cruiser's gone - voluntarily or no. Since he'd been in the Navy I'd have said "walk the plank!"

PS: Andy was of course fashionably late.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Saltydog

Hmmmmmmm, after reading some of the snarky, irrelevant to clothing, vicious posts in this thread...I find myself wondering, "And Cruiser's posts were worse than this? How?" Like the rest of us don't chase rabbits from time to time. Frankly, I'd rather read most of Cruiser's stuff than the never-ending questions about whether or not certain items are "trad" or not. But, I didn't even know the guy personally and have no real skin in this game except to say a lot of people seem to be casting stones when they have no business. I think the forum is more shallow without his thoughts--but that's just one guy's opinion. Now, can we get back to more substantive issues. I watched "Legal Eagles" last night and thought Redford dressed very tradly. I would have like to have seen him in something other than just white ocbds (when he wore a suit)...such as blues and uni-stripes--but he tied a great 4-in-hand and had the perfect collar roll. I did catch him in pleats a couple of times and was crushed...and I do think he should have worn more regimental striped ties. All in all though, I approved. Of course when you look like RR did before the sun damage took its toll on his skin, you can pretty much make any rig look good.


----------



## Jovan

Might as well throw in my two galleons...

Cruiser was, in my opinion, somewhere between the sartorial anti-Christ described by some and the kind hearted fellow with common sense espoused by others. He was for the most part a nice guy, but I did kindly remind him on a few occasions that his "nobody but clothing enthusiasts will notice" shtick was getting quite old. Once in a while it's good to get back on ground level, such as a thread where the OP obsesses about whether he should wear bluchers or balmorals to an interview at an IT firm, but he did this constantly. Yes, of course no one but us will notice! That's why we're on a men's clothing forum! I think if he just gave up that little act he'd have been a lot more pleasant. I'm glad he at least tried a pocket square once or twice because of this forum...


----------



## Haffman

Jovan said:


> Might as well throw in my two galleons...
> 
> Cruiser was, in my opinion, somewhere between the sartorial anti-Christ described by some and the kind hearted fellow with common sense espoused by others. He was for the most part a nice guy, but I did kindly remind him on a few occasions that his "nobody but clothing enthusiasts will notice" shtick was getting quite old. Once in a while it's good to get back on ground level, such as a thread where the OP obsesses about whether he should wear bluchers or balmorals to an interview at an IT firm, but he did this constantly. Yes, of course no one but us will notice! That's why we're on a men's clothing forum! I think if he just gave up that little act he'd have been a lot more pleasant. I'm glad he at least tried a pocket square once or twice because of this forum...


Good post, truly the 'voice of Moderation' !!


----------



## eagle2250

arkirshner said:


> "Let the Healing Begin"
> 
> Music and lyrics by Tony Joe White
> 
> Performed by Joe Cocker


Perhaps a more appropriate song to take us out of this would be
"What Are We Fighting For" by Live:

Battle flag in the bassinet,
...Oil and blood on the bayonet.
Crowded downtown
...better hit the floor!
Oh, what are we fighting for,
...what are we fighting for?

The world got smaller but the bombs got bigger;
...Holocaust on a hairpin trigger
Ain't no game,
...so forget the score!
Oh what are we fighting for,
...what are we fighting for?

Now gentlemen (and I do use that term ever so loosely), lest we care to paint ourselves as a bunch of Turkey Buzzards, troubling over the mouldering remains of yesterdays roadkill, perhaps we could All just move on to other, more constructive threads/topics? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Trip English

Salty, with all due respect I just don't see what Cruiser added here. He was exactly what most of us were trying to escape by coming here: the lazy equivocation that allows standards to fall further and further. We all come here because we know that we can do better. We know that there's a more flattering cut or a more complimentary color. We know that the way and place that our clothing is made matters. We know that our clothing is often the first piece of data that anyone has to evaluate us by and that those impressions will, to some extent, map out the course our life will take. 

It's like Andy is the angel on one shoulder and Cruiser the devil on the other. When Andy whispers to us to skip the $100 shoes and save for a few more paychecks to buy quality, Cruiser tells us that you can wash Crocs in the dishwasher and, while we're on the subject, black jeans don't show sauce stains. 

I don't think he was a bad guy at all and I certainly have never actually been upset by him, but good riddance to the voice of mediocrity and resignation. If I ever miss Cruiser's point of view I can always go to my local Kohls and watch distracted men buy dress pants that you can put in the dryer.


----------



## Andy

Orsini:

Re the reference earlier in the thread to passing the bar - I've never been able to pass one; I go right in! :cool2:

And I didn't pass any bar in Hermosa last night, but couldn't find you. You were wearing a pocket square weren't you? :icon_smile:


----------



## Saltydog

Trip, I do somewhat see your point. I did find it strange that Cruiser made it a point to constantly assert that he wore (Lee I believe) jeans 99% of the time and rarely dressed up to any degree since he was semi-retired. I wondered why someone who championed the kind of stuff I wear around the house on weekends would be particularly interested in a forum where we all tend to obsess on what some would consider trivial matters of fashion. Nevertheless, I did enjoy most of his writings. Again, he and I were the same age and he would often touch on generational things that brought back a lot of memories for me. I can understand where some, not of that generation, would not particularly have the same interest. As I said, up until this thread did I had not bothered to do a search on some of his more high octane disagreements--and have to admit that I was a bit surprised to read some of them since I really did consider him level headed on most issues. I do appreciate good writing and he was a pretty good wordsmith. Personally, I enjoyed most of his contributions. Regardless--I am surprised at the amount of passionate controversy his departure has generated.


----------



## Barrister & Solicitor

Saltydog said:


> [...] I really did consider him level headed on most issues. I do appreciate good writing and he was a pretty good wordsmith. Personally, I enjoyed most of his contributions.


I couldn't have said it any better.

A number of great posters from years past allegedly stopped posting because of Cruiser. I can hardly believe that, but who am I to pass judgment? That's unfortunate because I learnt a lot from the likes of JLibourel, DocHolliday, Teacher, MEdwards, etc.

Cruiser's perspective was well known and, in this regard, he perhaps ought to have been taken with a grain of salt.

Irrespective, I often found myself siding with his point of view because I considered his comments reasonable.


----------



## Regillus

Trip English said:


> Salty, with all due respect I just don't see what Cruiser added here. He was exactly what most of us were trying to escape by coming here: the lazy equivocation that allows standards to fall further and further. We all come here because we know that we can do better. We know that there's a more flattering cut or a more complimentary color. We know that the way and place that our clothing is made matters. We know that our clothing is often the first piece of data that anyone has to evaluate us by and that those impressions will, to some extent, map out the course our life will take.
> 
> It's like Andy is the angel on one shoulder and Cruiser the devil on the other. When Andy whispers to us to skip the $100 shoes and save for a few more paychecks to buy quality, Cruiser tells us that you can wash Crocs in the dishwasher and, while we're on the subject, black jeans don't show sauce stains.
> 
> I don't think he was a bad guy at all and I certainly have never actually been upset by him, but good riddance to the voice of mediocrity and resignation. If I ever miss Cruiser's point of view I can always go to my local Kohls and watch distracted men buy dress pants that you can put in the dryer.


Hear hear!


----------



## Andy

Trip English:

An unusually astute analysis! Thank you.

I admit that I tried not to read Cruiser's posts (repression?) after the first few (actually they seemed all the same anyway) so I wasn't as aware as I should have been of how much he was detrimental here. However since this thread I've received a surprising amount of PMs/e-mails of thankfulness for his departure.


----------



## blue suede shoes

Andy said:


> Trip English:
> 
> An unusually astute analysis! Thank you.
> 
> I admit that I tried not to read Cruiser's posts (repression?) after the first few (actually they seemed all the same anyway) so I wasn't as aware as I should have been of how much he was detrimental here. However since this thread I've received a surprising amount of PMs/e-mails of thankfulness for his departure.


Thank you Andy for this forum and for all of the information and camaraderie it provides. I haven't been a member here very long so I missed the "golden age", but so far I've learned a lot and enjoyed every minute. Andy and the moderators have done an excellent job of keeping discussions civil and without profanity. There is no comparison between this and that other forum where the "f" word is mentioned in at least every other sentence. Maybe the posters there need a few courses on how to express themselves in English.

Cruiser spouting off all the time on this forum about his jeans and Rockports is no different than one constantly talking about their 1971 Pinto on a forum where the merits of Bentleys, Aston Martins, Maseratis, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, and other fine cars are discussed. It's surprising that he was so well liked because he could really get arrogant at times. It is sad that some excellent posters quit posting because of him. I hope at least a few will return.

Thanks Andy, and keep up the good work.


----------



## Andy

blue suede shoes said:


> Thank you Andy for this forum and for all of the information and camaraderie it provides. I haven't been a member here very long *so I missed the "golden age",* but so far I've learned a lot and enjoyed every minute.
> ....


blue suede shoes:

Thanks for the kind words about the site and moderators, but  "*The Golden Age*" doesn't start until January 1, 2013 !! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Luftvier

Now, we can stop calling this forum by its nickname ACAC.

He really was stifling, and part of the reason why I avoided this forum for a long time.


----------



## Bandit44

Sometimes it is ok to allow a guy to bow out quietly. This long post is looking like more like sour grapes than sartorial concern.


----------



## Jovan

Perhaps, but that's why it was moved to the "pits of Hell" of The Interchange rather than left in the Fashion Forum!


----------



## Regillus

Ah; let's see...Cruiser, pits of Hell:
https://www.hellhappens.com/hell-2-by-jack-chick.gif

(maniacal laughter e.g. The Cryptkeeper)


----------



## TMMKC

Wow...this thread is still going on? The horse is dead.

:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## Saltydog

^^^
We've probably all submitted posts we wish we could take back--or written something snarky on a bad day. Or maybe just been boring or off-key at times. But this seems to be an example of piling on of extreme proportions. If a guy as basically innocuous as Cruiser seemed to me can generate this kind of vitriol upon their departure...it is enough to make one paranoid. He was, I believe well up there in the 4 digit realm of posts. I don't see how you can say much with that many posts without someone taking it poorly. Maybe the lesson here is to know when to quit when one is ahead. This is a tougher crowd than I thought.


----------



## Saltydog

Bandit44 said:


> Sometimes it is ok to allow a guy to bow out quietly. This long post is looking like more like sour grapes than sartorial concern.


Very well said, Bandit.


----------



## Haffman

Bandit44 said:


> Sometimes it is ok to allow a guy to bow out quietly. This long post is looking like more like sour grapes than sartorial concern.


+2

We are going round in circles now. The king is dead...long live the king!


----------



## Haffman

Jovan said:


> Perhaps, but that's why it was moved to the "pits of Hell" of The Interchange rather than left in the Fashion Forum!


Interesting that a part of the site that is so innocuously described as a "A place for ladies and gentlemen to sit back in a plush leather club chair, with drink and cigar in hand and pleasantly discuss the great issues of the day that are not about clothes" actually turns out to be...'the pits of Hell'

Another case of fradulent advertising ?! :-D


----------



## Howard

Luftvier said:


> Now, we can stop calling this forum by its nickname ACAC.
> 
> He really was stifling, and part of the reason why I avoided this forum for a long time.


What do we call it then?


----------



## Jovan

Haffman said:


> Interesting that a part of the site that is so innocuously described as a "A place for ladies and gentlemen to sit back in a plush leather club chair, with drink and cigar in hand and pleasantly discuss the great issues of the day that are not about clothes" actually turns out to be...'the pits of Hell'
> 
> Another case of fradulent advertising ?! :-D


 You're not the first one to point this out. I think it needs to be addressed at some point.


----------



## Peak and Pine

What if we keep the cigars and booze, but switch out the leather chairs and babes for pistols and shivs?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Peak and Pine said:


> What if we keep the cigars and booze, but switch out the leather chairs and babes for pistols and shivs?


Your worst advice ever. I may bring one of my Glocks, but I shall _*not*_ dispense with the babes.


----------



## Saltydog

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Your worst advice ever. I may bring one of my Glocks, but I shall _*not*_ dispense with the babes.


I'll see your plastic gun and raise you my 2 Colt 1911 .45 ACPs. Or two bulldogs and a Gatling Gun.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Saltydog said:


> I'll see your plastic gun and raise you my 2 Colt 1911 .45 ACPs. Or two bulldogs and a Gatling Gun.


As I say every Winter to my eldest, "Beretta jammed again? OK, you can borrow one of the 9's but not my _plastic_ .45."  But I must admit a tinge of jealousy when he takes out his Taurus. I'd eat yer dogs for lunch ... but if you really have a Gatling ... :icon_hailthee:


----------



## Saltydog

Boy, I _wish_ I had a Gatling. Seriously...I kid about the Glock--but have great respect for it. Just love my 1911's...even though technology has moved on. It is amazing though that a pistol introduced 100 years ago can still pretty much hold its own even today. But I think I have definately jumped the shark on this particular thread.ic12337:


----------



## hardline_42

Alright, this thread has gone Glock vs. 1911! Tupperware belongs in the kitchen, Alex! I bet John Moses would beat Gaston in a fist fight, too.

I'll check back in when this turns into Ford vs. Chevy.


----------



## Saltydog

Well it was about time to change the subject, don't you think? I mean there's only so much to be said for or against a guy who no longer even posts on the forum. Like him, don't like him--who cares? He's outta here of his own volition.


----------



## Howard

Peak and Pine said:


> What if we keep the cigars and booze, but switch out the leather chairs and babes for pistols and shivs?


I'll take the hot sexy babes anytime.


----------



## Jovan

Saltydog said:


> Boy, I _wish_ I had a Gatling. Seriously...I kid about the Glock--but have great respect for it. Just love my 1911's...even though technology has moved on. It is amazing though that a pistol introduced 100 years ago can still pretty much hold its own even today. But I think I have definately jumped the shark on this particular thread.ic12337:


 Well, just like the business suit, the M1911 has proven itself to be reliable for a century.


----------



## KenR

Andy said:


> Trip English:
> 
> An unusually astute analysis! Thank you.
> 
> I admit that I tried not to read Cruiser's posts (repression?) after the first few (actually they seemed all the same anyway) so I wasn't as aware as I should have been of how much he was detrimental here. However since this thread I've received a surprising amount of PMs/e-mails of thankfulness for his departure.


Although I thought he was basically a nice guy, I too am not upset by his departure. There have been many good descriptions of him by his detractors, but the 1971 Pinto driver on the Bentley forum was the most apt. And I think he knew what he was doing. He wasn't that intentionally benign.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

hardline_42 said:


> Alright, this thread has gone Glock vs. 1911! Tupperware belongs in the kitchen, Alex!


 I agree. Tupperware: That's what you non-Glock guys use as rust-preventative, no?



hardline_42 said:


> I'll check back in when this turns into Ford vs. Chevy.


I recall my first GM car - a 1952 Chevy sedan handed down from my mother. Then Dad's '60 Impala wagon. Then my '70 Grand Prix. Then my '68 Vette set up for gymkhanas. Finally bought a new car (still have it) - an '88 Sedan DeVille. Now driving a full 4-door 5 passenger Silverado 2500 long bed.

However, two years ago when GM became Gov't. Motors, I sadly resolved that my next - and all which follow - will be a Ford.

Hmmm ... was that political? If so, oops. :devil:


----------



## The Rambler

Perhaps this thread should be moved again, to something nobody reads, like the bespoke forum.


----------



## Acct2000

Or perhaps not - - - - -

Alex, no Little GTO in the mix? (To think I learned the high falsetto of that song and this is all the appreciation the Little GTO gets - - - -)


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Or perhaps not - - - - -
> 
> Alex, no Little GTO in the mix? (To think I learned the high falsetto of that song and this is all the appreciation the Little GTO gets - - - -)


Nope. My GF had the Goat same time as I had the Vette. Thankfully, back then there were some unpatrolled roads.


----------



## Acct2000

Oh to have been old enough to drive in those times - - - -

Although those of us who came of age in the mid-seventies had wilder parties!


----------



## Saltydog

Saltydog said:


> Boy, I _wish_ I had a Gatling. Seriously...I kid about the Glock--but have great respect for it. Just love my 1911's...even though technology has moved on. It is amazing though that a pistol introduced 100 years ago can still pretty much hold its own even today. But I think I have definately jumped the shark on this particular thread.ic12337:


On the other hand...can you use a Glock to pistol whip someone? The 1911, on the other had, has proven itself up to that task many times.


----------



## eagle2250

Jovan said:


> Well, just like the business suit, the M1911 has proven itself to be reliable for a century.


Please forgive me for asking this, but I must. Is owning, carrying, shooting an M1911 Trad? :devil: I generally wear an ascot to the range...it makes a great target!


----------



## Jovan

WHO CARES?! Wear, carry, live what you want to! It doesn't matter whether it's Trad or not!

</rage>


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Jovan said:


> WHO CARES?! Wear, carry, live what you want to!


 If only you had extended the same courtesy to Cruiser.


----------



## El_Abogado

eagle2250 said:


> Please forgive me for asking this, but I must. Is owning, carrying, shooting an M1911 Trad? :devil: I generally wear an ascot to the range...it makes a great target!


 The 1911 is the Almighty's sidearm. From Him, to John Moses Browning, to the rest of us. For 100 years. That' ur-trad, or something.

The G19 is no longer a fashion forward choice and is appropriate for the well-armed man. And, it can be used for a pistol whipping, or so I've heard. And the only good Gatling guns are made by G.E. or modified by Dillon. Guns are like suits are like tools. Function is paramount, but being functional and fashionable is the epitome. . . .


----------



## Jovan

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> If only you had extended the same courtesy to Cruiser.


 I was pretty nice to Cruiser compared to a lot of comments here.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Jovan said:


> I was pretty nice to Cruiser compared to a lot of comments here.


You were.

As were many who posted here, though pretty is a 10-cent adjective. Everyone who spoke up for Cruiser did so with a qualification, me included, tho mine was a little different. I think I said my only complaint with Cruiser was that I thought he might not have liked me as much as I liked him. But that's been rectified; I got an email from him and he cleared that up. My assumption was right tho, early on any way; I guess with time I must have won him over. Or wore him down.

Cruiser represented the overwhelming majority of men, not teens or twenties, but full grown ones, ones who have some degree of education and experience, have raised a family, held a job, lost a job, know right from wrong, wool from cotton, sorted out the important from the trivial and have moved on. He used this forum (I guess with this) similar to how I do, to look back and to look out and to keep a foot in the doorway of a subject matter in which he holds a higher interest than most men, but only slightly. That there are others more entrenched in what we discuss here shouldn't diminish the contributions of those less so.

Cruiser was a helluva good writer too, different from, but in a league with Cuff and Alex and Kurt and Trip and Cards and a whole host of others whom I will pm when next reading them and apologize for having left them out. As I think about this now he may have been the best at articulating the view of those who click out soon after discovering Ask Andy, those who would have lingered longer had they found more threads or a tone with which they could relate.

And Cruiser was a Navy guy. And he posted great every-day pictures, some from the 50s, ah the 50s; Cruiser knew his stuff, shame so many of us chose to look down on that stuff.


----------



## nolan50410

Cruiser was probably the worst thing that ever happened to AAAC. On numerous occasions, I openly questioned his purpose for spending his time here. Why on earth would someone who sees no value in fine clothing choose to spend his time posting on a forum designed for people who see value in fine clothing? As others have stated, it was the equivalent of joining an Italian motors forum to constantly declare that your Honda Civic is just good enough for most people.

While his posts were often logical or factual, they normally served no other purpose but to completely derail a conversation. We don't come here to better understand what the average joe wears or why he chooses to wear it, but to aspire to attain greater sartorial knowledge. I enjoyed Trip's analogy of Andy as angel and Cruiser as devil. A more appropriate comparison might be that of a termite, slowly eating away at our home.

I've been around for about 6 years now, though I only starting posting under this name in late 2006. There was indeed a Golden Age. Whether a person or persons were the cause of it's demise, I do not know. I think most of the original group simply lost interest as topics were recycled over and again. How many times can you discuss working buttonholes or hook vents before it becomes tired? I do think Cruiser contributed to an overall decline in experienced, quality posters who kept conversations moving forward. He was certainly one of the primary reasons I severely limited my participation. Maybe now that he is gone, I'll take a few more peaks here and there.

But if I had to guess, he will return just when we start enjoying him not being around.....much like a termite.


----------



## Acct2000

Peak and Pine said:


> You were.
> 
> As were many who posted here, though pretty is a 10-cent adjective. Everyone who spoke up for Cruiser did so with a qualification, me included, tho mine was a little different. I think I said my only complaint with Cruiser was that I thought he might not have liked me as much as I liked him. But that's been rectified; I got an email from him and he cleared that up. My assumption was right tho, early on any way; I guess with time I must have won him over. Or wore him down.
> 
> Cruiser represented the overwhelming majority of men, not teens or twenties, but full grown ones, ones who have some degree of education and experience, have raised a family, held a job, lost a job, know right from wrong, wool from cotton, sorted out the important from the trivial and have moved on. He used this forum (I guess with this) similar to how I do, to look back and to look out and to keep a foot in the doorway of a subject matter in which he holds a higher interest than most men, but only slightly. That there are others more entrenched in what we discuss here shouldn't diminish the contributions of those less so.
> 
> Cruiser was a helluva good writer too, different from, but in a league with Cuff and Alex and Kurt and Trip and Cards and a whole host of others whom I will pm when next reading them and apologize for having left them out. As I think about this now he may have been the best at articulating the view of those who click out soon after discovering Ask Andy, those who would have lingered longer had they found more threads or a tone with which they could relate.
> 
> And Cruiser was a Navy guy. And he posted great every-day pictures, some from the 50s, ah the 50s; Cruiser knew his stuff, shame so many of us chose to look down on that stuff.


Very well-said, Peak!!


----------



## Acct2000

nolan50410 said:


> Cruiser was probably the worst thing that ever happened to AAAC. On numerous occasions, I openly questioned his purpose for spending his time here. Why on earth would someone who sees no value in fine clothing choose to spend his time posting on a forum designed for people who see value in fine clothing? As others have stated, it was the equivalent of joining an Italian motors forum to constantly declare that your Honda Civic is just good enough for most people.
> 
> While his posts were often logical or factual, they normally served no other purpose but to completely derail a conversation. We don't come here to better understand what the average joe wears or why he chooses to wear it, but to aspire to attain greater sartorial knowledge. I enjoyed Trip's analogy of Andy as angel and Cruiser as devil. A more appropriate comparison might be that of a termite, slowly eating away at our home.
> 
> I've been around for about 6 years now, though I only starting posting under this name in late 2006. There was indeed a Golden Age. Whether a person or persons were the cause of it's demise, I do not know. I think most of the original group simply lost interest as topics were recycled over and again. How many times can you discuss working buttonholes or hook vents before it becomes tired? I do think Cruiser contributed to an overall decline in experienced, quality posters who kept conversations moving forward. He was certainly one of the primary reasons I severely limited my participation. Maybe now that he is gone, I'll take a few more peaks here and there.
> 
> But if I had to guess, he will return just when we start enjoying him not being around.....much like a termite.


Cruiser was a person who gave advice fit for the masses. I suppose he could overdo his point sometimes, but there is an air of snobbery to a lot of the posters here who really needed to be brought down to earth.

If you can't handle a differing opinion, maybe you don't need to post on a message board.

Right now, this board is a place that people who come to learn more about clothing probably can't relate to as anyone who needs to learn more is at best, condescended to by so many posters.


----------



## mommatook1

I've been watching this thread grow all week, and actually had the opportunity to sit down and read through it this evening... Wow. Amazing grown men can get so worked up over comments made by complete strangers on the Internet. I don't think cruiser or the other guy would have made their respective comments about daughters or wives to anyone's face, as those comments would have come across as offensive, regardless of after-the-fact logic points. Yet, on the Internet, let the insults fly. Or, simply disregard them, and report the boorish behavior to moderator.

I think this forum has a wealth of knowledge, and I believe there is great importance to taking pride in your appearance. It speaks to your character. If you aren't contributing to that concept on a clothing forum, then I could see why others would approve of your departure. However, looking down on others because they aren't wearing an ascot to pick up bread at Ralphs is a touch over the top.


----------



## eagle2250

mommatook1 said:


> ......
> I think this forum has a wealth of knowledge, and I believe there is great importance to taking pride in your appearance. It speaks to your character. If you aren't contributing to that concept on a clothing forum, then I could see why others would approve of your departure. However, looking down on others because they aren't wearing an ascot to pick up bread at Ralphs is a touch over the top.


Indeed, "wearing an ascot to pick up bread at the local market" is over the top, but looking down on people and arguing that they don't take pride in their appearance, simply because they shop at Penny's, Walmart, etc. is short sighted at best and deplorable at worst! If those of our membership, presuming to speak down to the rest of us from their lofty perches in those ever so enviable "ivory towers" of theirs, would actually climb down and walk in the real world periodically, they might realize that for some in our communities, shopping at Penny's, Walmart, etc. is the very best that some folks can do and many of those that they look down upon actually do take pride in their appearance. For awhile now I have been working with a group that helps folks in the community who have fallen on hard times. The men/families we assist are good, well educated, hardworking people who have simply fallen on hard times, largely thanks to the decisions of the self-proclaimed bigshots who engineered the recession we find ourselves in and who would probably look down on the victims of their bad decisions and think them to be inferior! These lofty perch pretenders are the rather pathetic lot, methinks, not those who have fallen on hard times and are just doing the very best that they can do! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Saltydog

eagle2250 said:


> Please forgive me for asking this, but I must. Is owning, carrying, shooting an M1911 Trad? :devil: I generally wear an ascot to the range...it makes a great target!


The 1911 is the ocbd of firearms.


----------



## Saltydog

Peak and Pine said:


> You were.
> 
> As were many who posted here, though pretty is a 10-cent adjective. Everyone who spoke up for Cruiser did so with a qualification, me included, tho mine was a little different. I think I said my only complaint with Cruiser was that I thought he might not have liked me as much as I liked him. But that's been rectified; I got an email from him and he cleared that up. My assumption was right tho, early on any way; I guess with time I must have won him over. Or wore him down.
> 
> Cruiser represented the overwhelming majority of men, not teens or twenties, but full grown ones, ones who have some degree of education and experience, have raised a family, held a job, lost a job, know right from wrong, wool from cotton, sorted out the important from the trivial and have moved on. He used this forum (I guess with this) similar to how I do, to look back and to look out and to keep a foot in the doorway of a subject matter in which he holds a higher interest than most men, but only slightly. That there are others more entrenched in what we discuss here shouldn't diminish the contributions of those less so.
> 
> Cruiser was a helluva good writer too, different from, but in a league with Cuff and Alex and Kurt and Trip and Cards and a whole host of others whom I will pm when next reading them and apologize for having left them out. As I think about this now he may have been the best at articulating the view of those who click out soon after discovering Ask Andy, those who would have lingered longer had they found more threads or a tone with which they could relate.
> 
> And Cruiser was a Navy guy. And he posted great every-day pictures, some from the 50s, ah the 50s; Cruiser knew his stuff, shame so many of us chose to look down on that stuff.


Peak...I totally agree with you. For me, the forum is a less interesting place since Cruiser's departure. I miss him and the shared memories and sensibilities he brought to the table. He was the real deal...he lived the period when "trad" was the order of the day, went through the silliness of the 70's and came out with a rather balanced view on the other side. He appreciated and liked the things others here only discovered and became "experts" on in their 2nd or 3rd go-round. He didn't need to dress to the nines all the time as he was semi-retired, and I got the impression, was on a budget. But he didn't have to ask what the originals looked like, because--like a few of us--he was around for the originals. The snobbery of some of the wannabes who keep putting him down really puts me off. Thanks for taking up for the good guys, Peak. I very much enjoy your writing and 'get' the quirkiness you delightfully bring to a bunch that often takes itself too seriously. I for one wish Cruiser would come back (in part just to piss the snarky ones off, and also because I enjoyed his posts). To use a current cliche I really don't care for...he kept it real.


----------



## mommatook1

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed, "wearing an ascot to pick up bread at the local market" is over the top, but looking down on people and arguing that they don't take pride in their appearance, simply because they shop at Penny's, Walmart, etc. is short sighted at best and deplorable at worst! If those of our membership, presuming to speak down to the rest of us from their lofty perches in those ever so enviable "ivory towers" of theirs, would actually climb down and walk in the real world periodically, they might realize that for some in our communities, shopping at Penny's, Walmart, etc. is the very best that some folks can do and many of those that they look down upon actually do take pride in their appearance. For awhile now I have been working with a group that helps folks in the community who have fallen on hard times. The men/families we assist are good, well educated, hardworking people who have simply fallen on hard times, largely thanks to the decisions of the self-proclaimed bigshots who engineered the recession we find ourselves in and who would probably look down on the victims of their bad decisions and think them to be inferior! These lofty perch pretenders are the rather pathetic lot, methinks, not those who have fallen on hard times and are just doing the very best that they can do! :icon_scratch:


Good on you for volunteering yourself like that.

You've got no disagreement from me that taking pride in your appearance doesn't require a lofty budget; my entire wardrobe was probably bought with what some members here spend on one or two bespoke suits. Someone who makes an effort to improve and maintain their appearance with what is in their means, should certainly not be looked down upon.

It always cracks me up when I see people posting what they are wearing with nothing but labels or brands names, with no reference to colors, patterns, materials, etc. Kind of missing the point in my opinion, and the reverse is true as well... one can be a snob about the labels he wears, and the large amount of money spent on his wardrobe, and yet still look like crap.


----------



## Jovan

mommatook1: The point isn't to be shallow or anything, we're just curious about where a member's clothes come from. That's why most of them volunteer this information.


----------



## Haffman

Jovan said:


> mommatook1: The point isn't to be shallow or anything, we're just curious about where a member's clothes come from. That's why most of them volunteer this information.


I think what mommatook1 is saying is it cracks him up when people JUST post the brands...and I agree with him that this seems to be missing the point. Its useful to know that the shirt was brioni and the suit zegna but we might be more interested to find out that the suit was bright mustard and the shirt grey flannel a la 1992!


----------



## Preu Pummel

Orsini said:


> I am not going to cry any crocodile tears. That character ruined this joint. He was the best at what he did that I have ever seen.
> 
> You rookies, irrespective of number of posts, don't know what you're talking about. He destroyed this place.


 Agreed.


----------



## Tiger

While I do agree to an extent with some of the things written by Trip, Andy, and a few others, I am much more in league with Flanderian, Forsbergacct2000, Saltydog, Peak and Pine, and many others about Cruiser. These fora exist to discuss clothing, and Cruiser certainly did that, although many did not agree with his opinions or find his contributions valuable. Unless discussion is necessarily limited to John Lobb, Oxxford, Kabbaz-Kelly, et al., then why would we seek to strangle discussion? An electronic forum does not possess the inherent limits of time/space of traditional ones, and thus the parameters should be much broader. Besides, we are free to edit/filter whatever we wish - we can indulge the topics and threads that we find valuable, interesting, and entertaining, and discard those that we do not. Not difficult at all...

Certainly, Cruiser could be tendentious, and was often a gadfly. I usually did not agree with his clothing choices, but did enjoy reading his perspective, even when I did not concur. Many have said that Cruiser degraded the sartorial discussions on AAAC. Can't one make the case that the ubiquitous eBay/thrifting threads and the notifications of another purchase of $8 used shoes also degrade the sartorial discussions? I'd much rather read about and see Uncle's unbelievable shoe collection than see another pair of beat-up Florsheims from 1978. Yet, isn't there room for both? We seem to range from elitist to relativistic, and everything in between. (I think this is good, as the threads we create necessarily provide logical boundaries for discussion.) More importantly, those who have demonstrated their arrogance, elitism, and disdain for others on these fora - do we find that preferable? Doesn't that degrade our discussions, and in more ways than simply sartorial?

No doubt Cruiser has driven some members away. Perhaps he has brought a few in, too. In any event, I don't understand the members who have left because of Cruiser - talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water! What Cruiser - or anyone else - thinks or writes has little bearing on me. Again, we are free to read and respond as we wish, or not at all. For those who choose to be purposely offensive, the very able moderators will do what's necessary to maintain civility and decorum.

Finally, Cruiser seemed like a decent man. The borderline vicious attacks on him are uncalled for. If you think he writes drivel, fine; don't read it. To attack a man because you disagree with what you believe to be a pedestrian taste in clothing seems to me to be a far worse offense than wearing black suits, jeans in the office, and Ed Hardy t-shirts (although I will admit to getting nauseous just thinking about those ensembles!).


----------



## Kurt N

^ Lots of points I agree with. But I think the complaint by some was that threads too often got derailed--in other words, that the "logical boundaries for discussion" created by a thread's announced topic didn't in practice prevent thread derailment.

This is actually a complaint at SF, as well. Apparently there's a move afoot to address the problem by putting some moderatorial control in the hands of (selected) thread starters:

Not trying to derail _this _thread. But maybe amidst the various topics already covered, there's room to think about what it would take to foster a more edifying environment going forward. :icon_smile:

EDIT: Speaking of forum innovations: as I recall, the smart dressers whose departure signaled the end of the Golden Age were pretty vocal in their opposition to the establishing of the Bespoke Clothing Forum. They objected to, I guess, a couple different aspects of the idea. But one big objection was that the very premise was &#8230; too elitist! Part of the reason I've leaned the way I have in this thread is that I think a lot of those guys were, demonstrably, very hard to please.


----------



## Saltydog

I'm beginning wonder if this thread is not solid evidence that the trad forum has "jumped the shark".


----------



## Jovan

Tiger: A valid opinion and a well-spoken one at that.

Saltydog: I'm confused, as this thread wasn't in the Trad Forum to begin with...


----------



## eagle2250

^^
...which begs the question, in it's most extreme, multi-dimensional context, is it Trad to be bad...or does that fit nicely within the context of AmJack? Sort of a James Dean or young Marlon Brando sort of thing...eh! LOL. As to Saltydog's query regarding the "Trad forum jumping the shark," I can't really say but, just yesterday I watched a short news video of a 'shark jumping a surfer.' I've never seen a better reason for giving up surfing!


----------



## hardline_42

Saltydog said:


> I'm beginning wonder if this thread is not solid evidence that the trad forum has "jumped the shark".


 I think a more appropriate question would be, "Is it trad to jump the shark wearing a leather jacket and trunks?"


----------



## Jovan

Given it was done that way originally, yes it is.


----------



## Dr.Watson

I just noticed today that Cruiser's old avatar is back.


----------



## Apatheticviews

hardline_42 said:


> I think a more appropriate question would be, "Is it trad to jump the shark wearing a leather jacket and trunks?"


Is there any other way to do it?


----------



## Howard

Dr.Watson said:


> I just noticed today that Cruiser's old avatar is back.


Really? He came back?


----------



## DoghouseReilly

^ His avatar has been back since maybe a few days after this thread was started.


----------



## Andy

Dr.Watson said:


> I just noticed today that Cruiser's old avatar is back.


???

Why would it ever be missing?


----------



## DoghouseReilly

For some reason, it didn't appear in his posts for a few days after the banning and subsequent reinstatement. Maybe he removed it himself when he got banned, but added it back whenever he came back to check his account? Any way it happened, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## El_Abogado




----------



## Saltydog

I don't think he will be back. He indicated as much to me in a private message. After all, this is Andy's house and Andy was very critical--unjustly so in my opinion--of Cruiser's effect on the forum. I doubt Cruiser would have cared about most of the posters who piled on...but one has to respect the wishes of the guy who started all this. I don't blame him...but think the forum is less without him. This tread has helped me more fully realize however just what this forum's tone and substance is...and is not.


----------



## Andy

El_Abogado said:


>


Agree!!!



Saltydog said:


> ...but think the forum is less without him...QUOTE]
> 
> Yea! Less in this case is more! :icon_smile:


----------

