reasons that yesterday ruled:
- it was 85 degrees
- the Boston Marathon
- my boss is in Italy for the week
- i got to hear Bobby Crocker say, "If people are going into the city, they need to not look like fucking pigs."
(at the end of a long explanation about why he feels that women should -never- wear tank tops which, surprise!, he has a strong opinion on)
- David Beckam admits to affair, buys Posh Spice $1.8 pink diamond ring for her birthday. whoah...THIS guy was unfaithful!?!?! my world is rocked. also, could that ring be a little something he got second hand from Ben Assfleck? hmmm, just a thought, just a thought
- death by celebrity: could Victoria Beckham's amazingly pointy chin be registered as deadly weapon? and, in a contest, who could squeeze a baby to death with her thighs quicker, Beyonce or Britney Spears?
geoff:
I am pleased to be a delight. Unfortunately, as I have done so many, many times in the past, I have expressed a chance opinion with overmuch vigor, and am now stuck in the awkward position of defending said opinion. I am so ashamed. In light of this fact, I fully retract any and all statements I have made in the past week regarding tanktops, and hereby issue a formal apology to the tanktop wearers of the world.
Posted by: bobby | Wednesday, 21 April 2004 at 06:19 PM
Crockpot, your inane snobbery has never been more delightful. (Though your past pronouncements against South America, Indian tribes, morality, and organic milk are close competitors.)
However, I am in possession of a proof of your error:
(1) If a piece of clothing P is underwear, a significant majority of those who dress believe that P is underwear. (By the definition of 'underwear')
(2) A signficant minority of those who dress believe that the tanktop is not underwear. (Hyp.)
(3) So, the tanktop is not underwear. (1, 2, modus tollens)
Thus your argument is unsound. But let's suppose you remain unconvinced. So I allow arguendo the premise that tanktops are underwear. Then:
(4) If women shouldn't wear underwear in public, then they shouldn't wear anything at all in public. (Self-evident)
(5) Women should always wear something in public. (A normative claim I assume you'll endorse.)
(6) So, women should wear underwear in public. (4, 5, modus tollens)
Posted by: Geoff | Wednesday, 21 April 2004 at 12:49 PM
Wearing one's underclothes on the outside of one's clothing is ridiculous. The very word under-clothes implies that these clothes should be UNDER something. So, ladies, if you are going to wear a tank top, which is an undershirt, you may as well wear your panties over your gap khaki shorts as well. However, I did not say that women should NEVER wear tank tops, only that they should never wear them in the city, which is by definition a place of culture. If you want to look like a sweaty slob, please feel free to do so in the comfort of your own suburban home. People understand that there is certain clothing which is appropriate at, say, one's place of business or the opera, so why do they think that downtown Boston has the same conventions as their private bathroom? It's no deductive proof, but it's what i've got.
Posted by: bobby | Tuesday, 20 April 2004 at 08:31 PM
right-o blogorelli! thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: amy | Tuesday, 20 April 2004 at 11:58 AM
amy,
what of course...the Beckhams consist of David, international soccer star and his wife Victoria, former Spice Girl and now a silent spokeswoman for pointy chin implants. they are the most famous Britains besides the royals, and live with their 2 children in a castle dubbed "Beckinham Palace" by those in the UK.
(sigh)
how much do I love celebrity gossip?
Posted by: blogorelli | Tuesday, 20 April 2004 at 11:49 AM