https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...roup-norwegian

Pardon?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"fred" wrote in message
...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...roup-norwegian

On 03/08/2017 08:28, Brian Gaff wrote:
Pardon?

Its a photograph of empty bus seats that have a resemblance of people
wearing burqas.

Then there are comments by stupid people like harry saying that it
scares them to see so many people wearing burqas travelling on a bus.

At least these people might travel by bus their eyesight must be too
poor to drive if they can mistake empty bus seats for people.

Oh I see, well in a fog many people see a black bin liner and see it as a
dog lying down in the road.

I really don't go for the manner of dress defining the person in any case.
Have we not come further than that by now?

I can see joke shops selling inflatable Muslims soon. Could be a laugh to
fill a minibus with them.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 03/08/2017 08:28, Brian Gaff wrote:
Pardon?

Its a photograph of empty bus seats that have a resemblance of people
wearing burqas.

Then there are comments by stupid people like harry saying that it scares
them to see so many people wearing burqas travelling on a bus.

At least these people might travel by bus their eyesight must be too poor
to drive if they can mistake empty bus seats for people.

Most of us probably /have/ come farther than that now, but I'd suggest
that there is a minority of people who do define themselves with their
clothes. For some, it is almost the most important thing in their
lives. We, perhaps uncharitably, call them 'fashion victims'.

I'm not very religious, so I can't judge the motivations for wearing
religious garb, but I can imagine a sense in which the wearer considers
them to be definitive. In the West, we have the dog-collar and the
wimple, which make a very bold statement.

Brian Gaff wrote:
Oh I see, well in a fog many people see a black bin liner and see it as a
dog lying down in the road.

I really don't go for the manner of dress defining the person in any case.
Have we not come further than that by now?

I can see joke shops selling inflatable Muslims soon. Could be a laugh to
fill a minibus with them.
Brian

In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
I'm not very religious, so I can't judge the motivations for wearing
religious garb, but I can imagine a sense in which the wearer considers
them to be definitive. In the West, we have the dog-collar and the
wimple, which make a very bold statement.

Covering yourself from head to toe in black a very sunny country might
make some sense. If you wish to avoid getting sun tanned.

Not that long ago, the aristocracy in the UK used white makeup to
differentiate them from the weather beaten peasants.

But then the British are very good at adopting the national costume if
they emigrate. ;-)

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dan S. MacAbre wrote

Most of us probably /have/ come farther than that now, but I'd suggest
that there is a minority of people who do define themselves with their
clothes.

Yeah, most obviously with bowler hats, top hats,
flat caps, baseball caps worn backwards etc.

And then there are suits, the current fashion with
women of having cloth around their neck etc.

Hilarious watching Foyle's War and seeing the bugger
trout fishing with fancy clothes and a ****ing tie.

Not quite as bad as the savages that have ****ing great
lumps of wood in their ear lobes etc, but not that different
to the fools with studs in their lips and tongues etc.

For some, it is almost the most important thing in their lives.

I doubt it is for most of the religious sects into that stuff.

Or even for those that wear bowler hats or flat caps either.

We, perhaps uncharitably, call them 'fashion victims'.

I'm not very religious, so I can't judge the motivations for wearing
religious garb,

It has to be to make it obvious to everyone what your religion is.

but I can imagine a sense in which the wearer considers them to be
definitive. In the West, we have the dog-collar and the wimple, which
make a very bold statement.

And bowler hats, flat caps, suits etc etc etc.

Brian Gaff wrote:
Oh I see, well in a fog many people see a black bin liner and see it as a
dog lying down in the road.

I really don't go for the manner of dress defining the person in any
case.
Have we not come further than that by now?

I can see joke shops selling inflatable Muslims soon. Could be a laugh to
fill a minibus with them.
Brian

On Thursday, 3 August 2017 10:58:07 UTC+1, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Most of us probably /have/ come farther than that now, but I'd suggest
that there is a minority of people who do define themselves with their
clothes. For some, it is almost the most important thing in their
lives. We, perhaps uncharitably, call them 'fashion victims'.

I'm not very religious, so I can't judge the motivations for wearing
religious garb,

It's not that difernt from wearing some styles of clothes.

but I can imagine a sense in which the wearer considers
them to be definitive. In the West, we have the dog-collar and the
wimple, which make a very bold statement.

We also have shirts and ties and suites and holes in jeans not forgetting music genres from rock n roll to mods to new romantic to punks to soul to Reggae to crusties etc....
Then we have tattoos and piercings which as yet haven;t been seen as particualy religious in the normal sense of the word, but are in some african cultures.

Brian Gaff wrote

I really don't go for the manner of dress defining the person in any case.
Have we not come further than that by now?

Nope, not with some sects, most obviously with turbans, burkhas,
those weird massive hats some of the jewish sects are into, and
that other weird system where some of the jews deliberately
have part of their underwear hanging out, presumably to
prove that they are actually wearing it or something.

Rod Speed expressed precisely :
some of the jews deliberately
have part of their underwear hanging out, presumably to
prove that they are actually wearing it or something.

I have not seen or maybe not noticed that. Where does the underwear
show?