The "Beard" Trend

[dereperez]

An untamed beard, allowed to grow totally naturally, is quite accurately described as a "caveman look". It may be kept cleaner, with shampoo and conditioner and whatnot, but it's still a caveman look. It demonstrates skill for caring for one's self a bit higher, perhaps, than that of a feral cat.

Why a human should choose that is hard to say -- but whatever reason one might have, it's still a caveman look.

Just because you don't like the look doesn't mean it's a de facto "caveman look".

And is it "caveman" or "feral cat"? Let's keep it straight.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps they want to look that way? It doesn't "demonstrate" anything, because you do not know what's going on in their head. Not everyone has to conform to your (or Altniwhatever's) views of what makes a man "attractive".

Reality my ass. Subjective viewpoint? check.

That was a nice justification at the "caveman" slur. that was just his way of throwing shade towards people who sport a look he finds unappealing. A basic putdown.

I didn't comment at all on whether it was attractive or not. I merely noted that it is accurate.

In fact I've run into a couple of guys on whom it looked darned good, even after a week on the trail backpacking.

Besides which -- it's your own prejudice that makes it a "slur". You have no clue whether I find a caveman look attractive or not, so the bigotry here is yours.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just because you don't like the look doesn't mean it's a de facto "caveman look".

And is it "caveman" or "feral cat"? Let's keep it straight.

The shallow bigotry here is amazing.

Some people think a caveman look means virility, and find the nature of a feral cat stimulating.

Oh -- it's both "caveman" and "feral cat", for those who can read.

 

[Gentleheart]

I didn't comment at all on whether it was attractive or not.

You didn't? Did you not read what you wrote? You certainly implied it.

Besides which -- it's your own prejudice that makes it a "slur". You have no clue whether I find a caveman look attractive or not, so the bigotry here is yours.

lol nice try at turning it around on me.

go on and backpedal now.

 

[dereperez]

The shallow bigotry here is amazing.

Some people think a caveman look means virility, and find the nature of a feral cat stimulating.

Oh -- it's both "caveman" and "feral cat", for those who can read.

I didn't mention anything about whether you find the look attractive or not, or if one may think it looks virile or not. So there is nothing "shallow" about it.

It is only about the fact that you make it equal to a "caveman look". Perhaps you should take your own advice about learning to read.

 

[Kulindahr]

You didn't? Did you not read what you wrote? You certainly implied it.

lol nice try at turning it around on me.

go on and backpedal now.

I didn't imply it at all. You assumed it because you have a slanted view about the content of the word "caveman". So there's no backpedaling involved.

 

[Kulindahr]

I didn't mention anything about whether you find the look attractive or not, or if one may think it looks virile or not. So there is nothing "shallow" about it.

It is only about the fact that you make it equal to a "caveman look". Perhaps you should take your own advice about learning to read.

You defend your bigotry with mendacity:

Just because you don't like the look doesn't mean it's a de facto "caveman look".

And is it "caveman" or "feral cat"? Let's keep it straight.

You assumed I don't like it. The only basis for that assumption is that you have a pre-set emotional response to the term "caveman". That emotional response is known as bigotry.

As for learning to read, I taught reading comprehension at the college level. One of the first things required is to read what the words say, not what emotional content you bring to them.

 

[dereperez]

You defend your bigotry with mendacity:



You assumed I don't like it. The only basis for that assumption is that you have a pre-set emotional response to the term "caveman". That emotional response is known as bigotry.

As for learning to read, I taught reading comprehension at the college level. One of the first things required is to read what the words say, not what emotional content you bring to them.

That's all very nice, except you posted this little gem:

In response to

The caveman look is always grotesque, but I can see why the short beard trend cycles on and off.

You basically co-signed it when you posted:

So long for reality to be acknowledged.

...after reading Gentleheart's disapproval of using the "cavemen look" term.

So you apparently think it's "reality" that the "cavemen look is always grotesque". Nothing emotional about anything. You posted it.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Is rimming better or worse with the Duck Dynasty look?

Ooooh, ticklish!

-d-

 

[Gentleheart]

ugh...he needs to DO ME now!!!

I didn't imply it at all. You assumed it because you have a slanted view about the content of the word "caveman". So there's no backpedaling involved.

Please. You lost this "argument" when you ran off to cry in your reading comprehension thread.

Moving right along.

 

[BillyT]

The original bearded duo.



ZZTop

 

[Kulindahr]

That's all very nice, except you posted this little gem:

In response to



You basically co-signed it when you posted:



...after reading Gentleheart's disapproval of using the "cavemen look" term.

So you apparently think it's "reality" that the "cavemen look is always grotesque". Nothing emotional about anything. You posted it.

Nice attempt to defend either your lie or your failure at reading comprehension -- and you do it with a new lie. THis is what I actually responded to:

Oh, shock...it only took 23 replies before the word "caveman" was mentioned. Not bad.

That's when I said:

So long for reality to be acknowledged.

The only thing I commented on was the word "caveman" in reference to the look. Inclusion of the earlier statement was, as those who understand English usage in written communication would know, was to give the context, so everyone would see that I was taking Gentleheart's use of "caveman" to refer to the look.

Since you don't let us know where you are, I don't know if you're dealing with English as a second language, suffered from a crap public education system, or what. If the first, then I will know to be patient; if the second, to encourage you to overcome what they did to you, if something else... it depends on what it is.

For that matter, this is only Hot Topics; I suppose I should assume that communication here will major in the subjective and only distantly minor in rational discourse.

 

[Kulindahr]

reading comprehension[/I] thread.

Moving right along.

Alnitak described you well in that thread.

 

[Kulindahr]

The original bearded duo.

View attachment 1034597

ZZTop

Not quite the original, but they do know how to do a beard!

Those are actually just a step away from the caveman look -- you just comb it and trim the strays around the edge. It's easily maintained, and on the right face is a powerful look.

I've never particularly liked that variety when the background is a bare chest, though, unless it's a rather exceptional chest. The caveman look, OTOH, does seem to work on a bare chest -- maybe because they're both natural?

I can't find a good pic, but I've always like the Charlie Daniels Bad beard array -- they seem to know just what beard goes with each face.


BTW, I've been privileged to hear both groups live, from up close.

 

[Gentleheart]

The only thing I commented on was the word "caveman" in reference to the look. Inclusion of the earlier statement was, as those who understand English usage in written communication would know, was to give the context, so everyone would see that I was taking Gentleheart's use of "caveman" to refer to the look.

Since you don't let us know where you are, I don't know if you're dealing with English as a second language, suffered from a crap public education system, or what. If the first, then I will know to be patient; if the second, to encourage you to overcome what they did to you, if something else... it depends on what it is.

For that matter, this is only Hot Topics; I suppose I should assume that communication here will major in the subjective and only distantly minor in rational discourse.

lol this entire posts proves just how clueless YOU really are. You're excused, Kuli.

And please stop backpedaling. this just added nothing to your post, aside from your lame attempt to insult me.

You're also not good at condescension.

Alnitak described you well in that thread.

Sorry, I don't speak (or do) passive-aggressive.

I found his post even more amusing than your thread.

 

[dereperez]

Nice attempt to defend either your lie or your failure at reading comprehension -- and you do it with a new lie. THis is what I actually responded to:



That's when I said:



The only thing I commented on was the word "caveman" in reference to the look. Inclusion of the earlier statement was, as those who understand English usage in written communication would know, was to give the context, so everyone would see that I was taking Gentleheart's use of "caveman" to refer to the look.

Since you don't let us know where you are, I don't know if you're dealing with English as a second language, suffered from a crap public education system, or what. If the first, then I will know to be patient; if the second, to encourage you to overcome what they did to you, if something else... it depends on what it is.

For that matter, this is only Hot Topics; I suppose I should assume that communication here will major in the subjective and only distantly minor in rational discourse.

It is your vainglorious assumption that one may need to necessitate a lie in order to question you. Whether or not your original comment was meant to be innocuous, we will never know. You could be truthful, or you could be back-tracking. The fact of the matter is: the intention of your original reply to Gentleheart is far from clear. As someone who had taught reading comprehension at the college level, you should and would know that context is everything and meanings can often be inferred.

I entered the thread after you and Gentleheart had went tit-for-tat for a few posts. Your original reply after quoting both Alnitak and Gentleheart could have just been you replying to Gentleheart’s “cavemen” comment (and providing Alnitak’s quote as background context) or it could have been you feeling that Gentleheart must be out of touch with reality for disapproving of Alnitak’s “cavemen look is always grotesque”.

You are mistaken if you think the way in which you originally intended a message will come off as such for every reader. It is not necessarily that the reader has “poor reading comprehension.” You may have failed to remember that there are two sides to every coin and that internet posts have a habit of coming off a myriad of ways. It is not your fault that your post may have been incorrectly read. However, it is your fault to assume that your posts are flawless and that anyone who misinterprets your posts are either lying or suffering from poor reading ability. A simple explanation about your original intention through post, post comment, visitor message, or PM would have sufficed. There was no need to echo your disdain for supposed poor readers.

If I had simply misunderstood you (the whole dual-layered quoting), then I retract my earlier posts. Nevertheless, your sanctimonious act is becoming, quite frankly, nauseating. We get it. Those whom you perceive as lacking reading comprehension are beneath you and deserve in every respect to be “despised”. You can obfuscate it all you want by blaming the majority of it on the “educational system”, but in the end your disdain for the individuals is quite evident.

You reply with a certain arrogance with your ever-reverberating comments such as “…as those who understand English usage in written communication would know…”. Your background of teaching reading comprehension does not make you a moral or intellectual superior. And even if you are supposedly intellectually superior, the condescending intonations of your comments preclude you from being on any moral high ground. How might haughty of you.

It is perhaps unfortunate that no amount of education can teach someone humility.

 

[pat grimshaw]

lol this entire posts proves just how clueless YOU really are. ...

Kuli didn't know who Beyoncé was.

gun-toting hippie.

 

[pat grimshaw]

....he needs to DO ME now!!! ...

Me Too!!!!!!

 

[geloge]

The only thing I commented on was the word "caveman" in reference to the look. Inclusion of the earlier statement was, as those who understand English usage in written communication would know, was to give the context, so everyone would see that I was taking Gentleheart's use of "caveman" to refer to the look.

First I'm not English speaker so maybe I'm wrong. The literal translation to Spanish implies at least primitive wich is not necessarily negative, but usually is related to silly, unhygienic and overall inferior

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

ugh...he needs to DO ME now!!!

That is a really nice beard.