# Cruiser?



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Cruiser? Are you out there somewhere? Anyone?


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Got a pm from him a couple of weeks ago but I think he was banned from AAAC.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

He hated clothes and drove away a high percentage of the men who originally made this site into a Mecca for men's clothing. Please let sleeping dogs lie.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

I thought this site still is THE Mecca for men's clothing. Unless one can't express themselves without throwing in a few four letter words, which in that case, styleforum.net would be the appropriate place.


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

Moderators, consider preemptively moving this thread to the Interchange.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

DoghouseReilly said:


> Moderators, consider preemptively moving this thread to the Interchange.


No, I don't agree at all. I was expressing concern and not looking to go "interchange" in any sense of the word. Sorry if I missed the "banned" part, if it is so.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

arkirshner said:


> He hated clothes and drove away a high percentage of the men who originally made this site into a Mecca for men's clothing. Please let sleeping dogs lie.


No, I don't agree at all. Your comment strikes me that you hate that he dared to disagree. I often disagreed with him, too, but he didn't drive away anyone whose opinion I cared to read. Yeah, I know, things are never as good as they used to be--my life is at that point as well. You just have to work through it. I won't speak for the man, but one of his themes was to advocate for the guy who didn't make a quarter of a mil a year.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

blue suede shoes said:


> I thought this site still is THE Mecca for men's clothing. Unless one can't express themselves without throwing in a few four letter words, which in that case, styleforum.net would be the appropriate place.


Yes, and let's keep it that way by embracing the gadflies, etc., and even the occasional 4-letter word slip. I miss his posts, agreeing or not, and that is the point.


----------



## Trad-ish (Feb 19, 2011)

Wow, cue the "Twilight Zone" music. I was searching around AAAC earlier today for information about collar bars and Cruiser came up more than once.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

eyedoc2180 said:


> No, I don't agree at all. Your comment strikes me that you hate that he dared to disagree. I often disagreed with him, too, but he didn't drive away anyone whose opinion I cared to read. Yeah, I know, things are never as good as they used to be--my life is at that point as well. You just have to work through it. I won't speak for the man, but one of his themes was to advocate for the guy who didn't make a quarter of a mil a year.


Among others, he libelled Dr. Libourel who stayed, but finally Michael Anton, the best writer here, (he was a 
White House speech writer after all), got fed up and left. All cruiser ever said was, anything that covers one's body is good enough, and anyone that thinks otherwise is a snob, (or worse, much worse).


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

eyedoc2180 said:


> Yes, and let's keep it that way by embracing the gadflies, etc., and even the occasional 4-letter word slip. I miss his posts, agreeing or not, and that is the point.


Socrates was a gadfly, crusier was no Socrates.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

I asked the same question last summer -

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?112456-Where's-Cruiser

and learned that it seems some, including Andy, found his posts offensive.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

All explanations accepted. Thank you for tolerating my rant, as there are some strong feelings out there. Not quite a naught's had and all's spent, but I enjoyed his posts.


----------



## caravan70 (Mar 18, 2010)

Having read many of his posts, including older ones, I've seldom found Cruiser to be offensive. My impression has always been that his inclination is toward clothing that is stylish and traditional yet within the average person's means - a viewpoint that often complements a discussion by offering more affordable alternatives to more expensive suggestions. Now, I do recall one thread in which he insulted Dr. Libourel, but I think his daughter had been brought into the discussion, which incensed him, and he subsequently apologized for the insult. That's the lone exception to his general civility, though, at least in my experience, and the reason I used the term "seldom" above. I wouldn't at all mind seeing him back here.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

I'd rather see manton back here.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

A surprising number of members thought to have left still seem to log back in; many of those mentioned in this thread included.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

arkirshner said:


> Among others, he libelled Dr. Libourel who stayed, but finally Michael Anton, the best writer here, (he was a
> White House speech writer after all), got fed up and left. All cruiser ever said was, anything that covers one's body is good enough, and anyone that thinks otherwise is a snob, (or worse, much worse).


The one positive service Cruiser provided is that, with his photos of himself and description of his attire, he was a perfect example of how NOT to dress.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Flanderian said:


> I asked the same question last summer -
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?112456-Where's-Cruiser
> 
> and learned that it seems some, including Andy, found his posts offensive.


The thread to which Flanderian refers is quite detailed and passionate from a variety of perspectives. Would make sense for anyone wishing to learn the history of the Cruiser situation to begin there.

By the way, Cruiser is no longer banned by AAAC; according to some members who have contact with him (I don't), seems like he's instituted a self-imposed exile.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

rsmeyer said:


> The one positive service Cruiser provided is that, with his photos of himself and description of his attire, he was a perfect example of how NOT to dress.


I kept waiting for the "after" photos but he kept giving us the "before" shots!!

I thought his family album was facinating though...


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

99% of the people who come here are interested in fine clothing. Cruiser spent 99% of his time telling everyone that they shouldn't be interested in fine clothing.

I made the analogy several times. I don't spend my time telling folks on fine European automobile forums that my Honda Accord is "good enough for most everyone". I found it fascinating that Cruiser chose to spend his time here.

I'm sure he is a nice gentleman in person. Make no mistake about it, this place is worsened by people who behave the way Cruiser chose to behave.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Might we refrain from insulting him or anyone else on this forum? Let's move on...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Gentlemen: These fora exist for the ongoing discussion of clothing. The derogatory comments regarding a formerly active member are unnecessary and offer nothing of constructive value for the good of the order. They are simply the spewtum of school yard bullies and will not be tolerated. Should you chose to continue in this vein, this thread will be locked and any other appropriate action will be taken. Enough said!


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Thank you Eagle! For the record, I seem to remember that Cruiser was banned (for some reason I never could discern) and then reinstated. This _may_ have even happened more than once--thought I'm not sure about that. My impression was that after the banning and subsequent cat calling by a number of other members similar to that above...he decided he was less welcome here than not and choose to no longer submit posts. I don't blame him. If people talked as rudely about me as they did him--I would shake the dust off my feet as well...and probably not be as gracious and gentlemanly as he was in my departure. He still reads the posts and I have gotten a couple of nice PMs from him. I enjoyed his posts a great deal and feel the forum is a much duller place without him. I wish he would come back...if for no other reason than to bug the snots that hate him so...which I cannot understand. Cruiser was a good contributor in my book and, as far as I could tell, more of a gentlemen than most of his detractors.

I'm glad the moderators refuse to allow people to continue blasting those who are no longer even posting.


----------



## Georgetown08 (Oct 5, 2011)

I'm far too new here to have any opinion on Cruiser, but I think at least one short-live poster had some pretty rude things to say about you, Saltydog.

(Not trying to start trouble here, just got a good laugh out of the dog/dawg controversy.)


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Saltydog said:


> Thank you Eagle! For the record, I seem to remember that Cruiser was banned (for some reason I never could discern) and then reinstated. This _may_ have even happened more than once--thought I'm not sure about that. My impression was that after the banning and subsequent cat calling by a number of other members similar to that above...he decided he was less welcome here than not and choose to no longer submit posts. I don't blame him. If people talked as rudely about me as they did him--I would shake the dust off my feet as well...and probably not be as gracious and gentlemanly as he was in my departure. He still reads the posts and I have gotten a couple of nice PMs from him. I enjoyed his posts a great deal and feel the forum is a much duller place without him. I wish he would come back...if for no other reason than to bug the snots that hate him so...which I cannot understand. Cruiser was a good contributor in my book and, as far as I could tell, more of a gentlemen than most of his detractors.
> 
> I'm glad the moderators refuse to allow people to continue blasting those who are no longer even posting.


Yes, this! More as well: I don't think Cruiser would mind me saying that I got a touching PM from him, based on this thread. He is a good guy with opinions, but his respect has led him not to post, despite not being banned. I am not sure that I get anyone leaving upon dealing with his posts. First graders know that they can always "ignore," but I am not sure some have risen above this level. Better to have a stone in your shoe, than to not walk on the beach.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I've also talked with Cruiser since his departure. Hopefully he also won't mind me saying so. I think that agreement to disagree was all that was ever needed with him. I also found his extremely high level of activity on a men's clothing forum a bit odd considering his personal take on the subject, but he never seemed to crusade aggressively for slovenliness. 

I also miss Peak & Pine, Coleman, and Brownshoe. Probably others, but Chacend seems to pop in now and again and I know that he's safe in the bosom of the Danish motherland.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Georgetown08 said:


> I'm far too new here to have any opinion on Cruiser, but I think at least one short-live poster had some pretty rude things to say about you, Saltydog.
> 
> (Not trying to start trouble here, just got a good laugh out of the dog/dawg controversy.)


Yeah...and I almost missed out on the thread (and the fun) if some of the guys hadn't PM'd me asking what I had said to tick the guy off so. Cruiser was one of them...and I appreciated his message. As for the drive by poster is concerned it was proven I was really polite to that guy (aka Saltydawg) who (as we say around here) just dog-cussed me to the ground. Upon further reflection--and the fact that I'm in a "grouchy old man mode" tonight...I hope that creep is reading because he is a cowardly yeller dawg--not a salty dawg at all.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Admittedly, I haven't been around these parts much lately...but it must really be a slow news day if you're all dredging up Cruiser again. He's gone, gents. Deal with it and move on. 

I find it rather funny that the folks who liked him the least miss him the most.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

TMMKC said:


> Admittedly, I haven't been around these parts much lately...but it must really be a slow news day if you're all dredging up Cruiser again. He's gone, gents. Deal with it and move on.
> 
> I find it rather funny that the folks who liked him the least miss him the most.


I was delighted to get a PM from Cruiser, so I know he's out there reading this in first lawful, then self-imposed exile (like many rebel/guerrilla figures in history). I think those of us who are fans of Cruiser should post a picture suitable for being blown up into poster size, make up t-shirts, etc. Cruiser is sort of the Che Guevara of the forum. I can sense a movement afoot (Ask Cruiser?) 

He's just bidding his time...waiting for the right moment to make his move. Mind you--we have not heard the last from the Cruise-man! Soon, I predict, we will see another "Cruise missal".

Or maybe he's more like the Ron Paul of the forum. A bit different from the mainstream--but representative of a loyal viewpoint. Like R.P. even though you don't always totally agree with him...he's very hard not to like and he does make some good points. (I'm pretty sure he's getting the biggest laugh out of all this. I hope so.)


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Saltydog said:


> I was delighted to get a PM from Cruiser, so I know he's out there reading this in first lawful, then self-imposed exile (like many rebel/guerrilla figures in history). I think those of us who are fans of Cruiser should post a picture suitable for being blown up into poster size, make up t-shirts, etc. Cruiser is sort of the Che Guevara of the forum. I can sense a movement afoot (Ask Cruiser?)
> 
> He's just bidding his time...waiting for the right moment to make his move. Mind you--we have not heard the last from the Cruise-man! Soon, I predict, we will see another "Cruise missal".
> 
> Or maybe he's more like the Ron Paul of the forum. A bit different from the mainstream--but representative of a loyal viewpoint. Like R.P. even though you don't always totally agree with him...he's very hard not to like and he does make some good points. (I'm pretty sure he's getting the biggest laugh out of all this. I hope so.)


 Che Guevara? You and Will Rogers.


----------



## Kelorth (Apr 29, 2009)

Cruiser is both Ron Paul and Che Guevara? LMAO


----------



## g.michael (Jul 9, 2010)

I didn't pay that much attention but now that I think about it, I did like his perspective because it was so different than many on the board here, and generated good debate.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

g.michael said:


> I didn't pay that much attention but now that I think about it, I did like his perspective because it was so different than many on the board here, and generated good debate.


I agree with you.


----------



## WillBr (Dec 15, 2009)

I covet the organization of his photos. Only cruiser could post a picture from 1977 in 19.77 seconds.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

arkirshner said:


> Che Guevara?


Che in his more sartorially correct days:


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

zzdocxx said:


> Che in his more sartorially correct days:
> 
> View attachment 3405


Well, he had that Rolex...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Here we go again... 
The eczema on the back of my hand knows more about wardrobe than TEKAC. 
TEKAC destroyed this joint. Once again, all hail Andrew the Wise, for he has liberated us from oppression.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Orsini said:


> Here we go again...
> The eczema on the back of my hand knows more about wardrobe than TEKAC.
> TEKAC destroyed this joint.


The option to ignore a post by a member is always available. How one person could "destroy this joint" seems remarkably unrealistic to me, especially since the joint in question seems to be intact!

I'll bet most of us ignore at least half of the stuff we see on the Trad and Fashion forums, for various reasons. Nobody is compelled to read anything that they do not wish, let alone engage in discussion about it...


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Who is TEKAC?

:drunken_smilie:


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Trip English said:


> I've also talked with Cruiser since his departure. Hopefully he also won't mind me saying so. I think that agreement to disagree was all that was ever needed with him. I also found his extremely high level of activity on a men's clothing forum a bit odd considering his personal take on the subject, but he never seemed to crusade aggressively for slovenliness.
> 
> I also miss Peak & Pine, Coleman, and Brownshoe. Probably others, but Chacend seems to pop in now and again and I know that he's safe in the bosom of the Danish motherland.


While I pretty much dislike cruiser's and peak & pine's posts, I really liked Brownshoe's contributions he was a very informative and witty member.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Tiger said:


> The option to ignore a post by a member is always available. How one person could "destroy this joint" seems remarkably unrealistic to me, especially since the joint in question seems to be intact!
> 
> I'll bet most of us ignore at least half of the stuff we see on the Trad and Fashion forums, for various reasons. Nobody is compelled to read anything that they do not wish, let alone engage in discussion about it...


Better than good.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> While I pretty much dislike cruiser's and peak & pine's posts, I really liked Brownshoe's contributions he was a very informative and witty member.


I don't know.....to me, it comes down to sincerity. Cruiser has/had it, whilst P & P was pinpricking constantly.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

```

```



eyedoc2180 said:


> I don't know.....to me, it comes down to sincerity. Cruiser has/had it, whilst P & P was pinpricking constantly.


I see that logic and don't fully disagree. Cruiser whatever his fault did seem a good deal more sincere than peak & pine.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

eyedoc2180 said:


> I don't know.....to me, it comes down to sincerity. Cruiser has/had it, whilst P & P was pinpricking constantly.


I agree with you as to P & P, and I agree that Cruiser is sincere. But (and I know you were not the one to bring him up),so was Che. It's just that Che hated capitalism and Western liberal democracies and acted in accord with that belief. Cruiser hates clothes and posted in accord with that belief.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

A clothing forum seems like a funny place for those guys to hang out.

Just goes to show.

:icon_jokercolor:


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

zzdocxx said:


> A clothing forum seems like a funny place for those guys to hang out.
> 
> Just goes to show.
> 
> :icon_jokercolor:


Good point. AAAC is perhaps a safety valve for a few. Sometimes the pressure is just steam, sometimes it's sewage. George Carlin might have said, "better here, than up on the roof with a 30-06." Trouble is, some folks ultimately get bounced wherever they go--AAAC, Sears, or even the eye doctor's office. :crazy:


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

Sorry to see Peak & Pine is gone. I miss Cruiser too. I don't come here much anymore either. For the same reason many stop coming here. . . .


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

El_Abogado said:


> Sorry to see Peak & Pine is gone. I miss Cruiser too. I don't come here much anymore either. For the same reason many stop coming here. . . .


And what is that?


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

^Trad baby names.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Amen to that!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Trip English said:


> ^Trad baby names.


Very funny, Trip!

That thread reinforced our decision to not have children...


----------



## LoneWolf (Apr 20, 2006)

Forget Cruiser...






I miss Howard :devil:


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Howsabout Chase Hamilton? I am still trying to figure that one.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> And what is that?


Since you asked, you and your ilk.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

El_Abogado said:


> Since you asked, you and your ilk.


Now, now, Santa drives a team of reindeer, not a team of ilk. :icon_saint7kg:


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

arkirshner said:


> ... finally Michael Anton, the best writer here, (he was a
> White House speech writer after all), got fed up and left.


This is incorrect, rumor and innuendo notwithstanding. You need to check your facts on this point.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> This is incorrect, rumor and innuendo notwithstanding. You need to check your facts on this point.


 I'm sure you are privy to the backstory, and as you are a gentleman I accept what you say. I simply read what Manton wrote and and concluded what I though to be obvious from what he said about his leaving and Crusier. It is clear that he did not care for Cruiser and where he felt Cruiser was taking this forum. At least as expressed in the cited thread, this was Manton's reason for leaving. What is public comes from this thread , and I quote Manton: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...oll-to-2-as-opposed-to-doing-a-2-button-suits

As I acknowledged up front, you must know more than it appears form the surface. If you have the ability to relate the backstory, without breaking confidences, inquiring minds want to know. If you are bound to secrecy, I understand.

November 19th, 2008 20:04#48
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

At least I can now just keep requoting my earlier reply rather than typing something afresh. 
This thread, like so many here, is surreal. It's like walking into a cooking class and listening to people say, "I don't like stock, I don't like demi-glace, I don't like veloute, I don't like terrines, I don't like fish, I don't like game, I don't like sauteing, or frying, or grilling," etc.

Well. OK! Your prerogative, certainly. But what the hell are you doing here?

November 19th, 2008 21:01#52
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

My point is, this is a totally different place than I remember. It's as if eGullet became a forum that spent all its time talking about canned soup and TV dinners.

Don't worry, I am going back into exile. You guys can go back to debating whether brown works with gray without any interference from me.

#55
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

It is now a question whether brown goes with gray? Whether the 3-roll-2 is stylish? On a clothing forum? That's not even back to basics. That's regression beneath the mean.

November 19th, 2008 21:26#58
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

Glad you are happy, since every single discussion here now seems to return this point.

Cruiser, my hat is off to you! I have never seen another instance of someone remaking an institution in his own image so thoroughly! It's an accomplishment, of sorts.

November 19th, 2008 22:07#66
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

If you guys want to spend your time arguing, in effect, that Spam v. fois gras is all in the palate of the taster, you are welcome to it. The argumentative jerk in my is getting a perverse thrill out of mixing it up here, but don't worry, it won't last.

Right, anyone who disagrees is a "snob." Got it.

What a tragedy this is.

November 19th, 2008 22:13#68
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts:

.And because of that, I am going away again. Bye!

Manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

The answer is bone-in ribeye.

Seriously, the whole discussion here is now premised on the notion that there is no such thing as connoisseurship, a widely accepted (if not unversally acknowledged) pantheon of the upper reaches of the subject.

This is thread is not about which style do you like best. The point certain posters are making is that they cannot for the life of them see why anyone could like a certain style. And not just any style, but a classic long favored by many of the world's best dressers. That is very different from differing tastes.

So, to continue the steak analogy, I can understand someone who prefers the porterhouse to the rib. Even the filet. However, you all want to elevate chuck into the pantheon, and kick the ribeye out. That is nuts.

You are welcome to your opinions. But if you think this is clothing talk at any but the most pedestrian, banal level you are seriously kidding yourselves

November 20th, 2008 01:24#91
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

So what are we here to talk about?

You only have to post "It's all relative; anyone who says otherwise is anal/a snob" once.

And I suppose you cannot see that your post at once denies and affirms the possibility of normative judgement with respect to cloths. But that's the new AAAC, baby. Yeah!

November 20th, 2008 01:39#94
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

To be clear, I am not accusing anyone of compromising my sartorial ideals. You can all dress like hell if you want, and I will dress the way I dress. I don't care what any of you think of it.

The point is, this is supposed to be -- it used to be -- an elevated discussion of clothes. Now it is a race to the bottom. You can prefer Spam to foie gras (to return to that analogy) and no one can talk you into liking the latter. But to always dogmatically force every conversation back to the ontological question of whether Spam is actually "better" than foie gras if even one person disagrees is to choke off all possibility of discussion of anything interesting to those whose tastes is a milimeter broader than the lowest common denominator.

The drift of this entire forum has for months been all in that direction. Maybe years. The whole place reads like a bunch of defensive cranks who don't like clothes but who have nonetheless banded together to defend to the death their disinterest against those who still care. Is it any wonder that those who still care are gone

Reply Reply With Quote .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 20th, 2008 04:07#100
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

Cruiser
You are a gigantic lead weight dragging this forum straight to the bottom. No, that is inaccurate. It is already there. You are the sheet anchor and the chain that will hold it there until the proprietor finally deciedes to listen to the steady hum of the EKG and pull the plug.

#109
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

Honestly, this isn't really responsive to the accusation. While many of your larger debates haven't been particularly egregious, it's the whole tone of "wear what you want, as long as you like it" that seems out of place. I would assume most people come here looking to IMPROVE what they're wearing, or advise others on how to do so, than to just have their existing dress validated. If the point of this board is the latter, it's a sad commentary on all of us that we have to turn to the internet to do so.
Impossible, there is no "improve" and anyone who says so is a snob.

Coming back here after so many months is strangely nostalgic and sad. It's like visiting my hometown, only to find all the windows broken, screendoors clanging in the wind, weeds everywhere, the streets deserted except for the occasional corpse ... but there, in the town square, is Cruiser, alive and well, and armed to the teeth, ready to shoot dead anyone who dares say, "Hey, maybe we can spruce things up around here!"

November 20th, 2008 14:23#113
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

Cruiser, if all that you write above is true -- and personally I believe it to be disingenuous nonsense -- then maybe you ought to consider the possibilty that you just don't have an "eye" for clothing. That is nothing to be ashamed of. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It says nothing about your character (though your posts say plenty about that). Not everyone is interested in everything, or has the knack for everything.

But that said, why don't you stop wasting everyone's time? Forcing every thread to return to a validation of your banal taste is pointless for everyone but you. If you showed up a cooking school and harrangued every class with lectures about why Arby's was just fine and this classical French crap was for snobs, you would be kicked out. And you would deserve it. Because your behavior would be boorish.

That is what I am saying about your behavior here. You have come to a place whose purpose is to discuss clothes made a dedicated effort to lower the tone, dumb the place down, to strip it of any interest. All, apparently, so that you can feel better about your black trousers and notch DJ.

Yes, Cruiser, there ARE standards, there are hierarchies, traditions, things that can be learned. You have learned none of them. You have stated over and over that you care about none of them. So just ... go away. And let other people learn about them, if they want to.

November 20th, 2008 18:31#139
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

Since I like this analogy, I will continue with it.

Arby's Man and a classically trained French chef have different world views, maybe. But the chef has knoweldge of something -- lots of it. He has learned a centuries-old tradition, learned fundamentals, technique, and basic recipes. Then he has experience putting all that into practice, both making things the orthodox way, and changing them according to his interests, the ingredients he finds, whatever.

Arby's Man may not care much about that knowledge. He may even despise the food. But to deny that this knowledge is knowledge is foolish and false. The most that Arby's Man can say is that it does not matter to him. Fine.

But then he should get the hell out of the kitchen. He certainly should not take every discussion the chef tries to have and force it back to the existential question "Is haute cuisine realy better than Arby's"? Other people may be interested in the knowledge that the chef wants to convey. Arby's Man is boorishly in their way. Other chefs may have other ideas that they want to discuss with the first chef, maybe even criticism of his work. But that blasted Arby's Man won't let them. Like the windbag he is, he has to elbow in on every conversation and make everyone see that to like Arby's is not a sign of inferiority. Hell, to him preferring Arby's to Taillevent is not even a sign of an unsophisticated palate! And how dare anyone suggest otherwise!

So, no, in the end this is not a dispute about world views. It's a dispute about whether you care about a certain body of knowledge, or not. No one saying that you have to care. We are saying that if you don't care, you should STFU and let the people who do care talk about it.

2008 20:06#161
manton
Arbiter CBDum 
Join Date: July 26th, 2003Location: , .Posts: 2,032

What a load of crap.

Among the many hundreds of annoying, forum-destroying habits you [cruiser] put in practice every day is the total inability to understand what others write, and the insistence on rewriting their words in ways that are not only totally contrary to what they actually say, but that also neatly fit your martyr complex.

The thread continued for hundreds more posts during which Cruiser personally attacked Dr Libourel. Whether Cruiser was the reason, one of the reasons, or simply a pretext for Manton's leaving is something about which you know more than I. Still, Manton's comments tell it the way it is.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

So, I take it this thread is now for getting last digs in?


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Whew.

I'm glad I missed all that.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Yup, the poster of #57 seems to want to drag this thing out by reposting all that garbage. Kinda reminds me of a junior high school kid who needs to get in the last word.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

"Arby's Man" kills me...


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> "Arby's Man" kills me...


I remember when that originally started.

I though Cruiser mellowed out a lot after he first showed up.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

arkirshner said:


> I'm sure you are privy to the backstory, and as you are a gentleman I accept what you say.


Thank you. I do not wish to speak ill of any of the departed. Let us leave it at that and move on.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

smmrfld said:


> Yup, the poster of #57 seems to want to drag this thing out by reposting all that garbage. Kinda reminds me of a junior high school kid who needs to get in the last word.


Or simply posting to support his point...


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> Or simply posting to support his point...


My take also.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Bjorn said:


> Or simply posting to support his point...


Which, I believe, is his prerogative.

I fear this is going to become another one of _those_ threads. I hope I survive...


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

Taken Aback said:


> So, I take it this thread is now for getting last digs in?


Yes, apparently. One more time. Again. Until the next thread. When we'll hear this or something new, but in the same vein.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Numerous moderators have asked me not to post about Cruiser, and I won't. But I will say, for those of you that didn't have the pleasure of being around before the 1st generation moved on, you really missed something special. There were several reasons why they chose to do so, not the least of which is the inevitable recycling of topics that they had long since mastered. But make no mistake, the posts quoted above illustrate a certain change of culture that was likely the tip of the iceberg, the icing on the cake, so to speak.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

nolan50410 said:


> Numerous moderators have asked me not to post about Cruiser, and I won't. But I will say, for those of you that didn't have the pleasure of being around before the 1st generation moved on, you really missed something special. There were several reasons why they chose to do so, not the least of which is the inevitable recycling of topics that they had long since mastered. But make no mistake, the posts quoted above illustrate a certain change of culture that was likely the tip of the iceberg, the icing on the cake, so to speak.


That's right.


----------

