Those Bug Eye sunglasses

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:30 pm

I'm not "fashion guy" or anything...in fact, I generally despise anything worn as an obvious attempt to make you "look cool" or to enhance your appearance in some way.

What are you hiding under there? And why stop there? Just wear a welder's mask and you'll cover up everything...that seems to be what you're trying to accomplish anyway.

I put these things right up there with dudes who pop their collars.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:46 pm

I used to wear aviator "mirrors" all the time
--you know-- the ones that the "man with no eyes"
wore in "Cool Hand Luke"--
great for eyballing the ladies and keeping
your cool !!

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:50 pm

See..at least those had a place in time. I hate it when younger crowds are constantly trying to re-invent things that were cool when they didn't even exist.

And I'm moreso referring to the giant sunglasses that chicks wear. Although the one's on the dude in the above pic are almost as equally toolish.

socal · Post by **socal** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:53 pm

Mgo, you're not a hair past 30 are you?

Adelpiero · Post by **Adelpiero** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:59 pm

its the jakie-o look

for a couple years, all the bitches were wearing those glasses that victoria beckham and her husband were always sporting in the papparazzi pictures.

what next? fossilman glasses?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:01 pm

socal wrote:Mgo, you're not a hair past 30 are you?

24

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:04 am

Adelpiero wrote:its the jakie-o look

i always termed it as "heroin chic." much more derogatory.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:14 am

They look okay on the ladies...although I'm not too enamored with them. I actually saw a (white) dork at the Tigers-Cubs game on Friday dressed in the full Kanye West get-up. He had on a golf shirt two sizes too small with the collared "popped", jeans that were almost skin tight...bear in mind it was in the mid 90s. He also had on cheap flip-flops and of course, those stupid bug-eye glasses. What a douche...

I do have to say that Cubs games are amazing for eye candy...eventhough some were sporting bug-eye glasses.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:18 am

Shoalzie wrote:They look okay on the ladies...although I'm not too enamored with them. I actually saw a (white) dork at the Tigers-Cubs game on Friday dressed in the full Kanye West get-up. He had on a golf shirt two sizes too small with the collared "popped", jeans that were almost skin tight...bear in mind it was in the mid 90s. He also had on cheap flip-flops and of course, those stupid bug-eye glasses. What a douche...

Did you fight him?

bbqjones · Post by **bbqjones** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:24 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Shoalzie wrote:They look okay on the ladies...although I'm not too enamored with them. I actually saw a (white) dork at the Tigers-Cubs game on Friday dressed in the full Kanye West get-up. He had on a golf shirt two sizes too small with the collared "popped", jeans that were almost skin tight...bear in mind it was in the mid 90s. He also had on cheap flip-flops and of course, those stupid bug-eye glasses. What a douche...
Did you fight him?

or get his didgets? damn, what a homo

Adelpiero · Post by **Adelpiero** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:33 am

bbqjones wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Shoalzie wrote:They look okay on the ladies...although I'm not too enamored with them. I actually saw a (white) dork at the Tigers-Cubs game on Friday dressed in the full Kanye West get-up. He had on a golf shirt two sizes too small with the collared "popped", jeans that were almost skin tight...bear in mind it was in the mid 90s. He also had on cheap flip-flops and of course, those stupid bug-eye glasses. What a douche...
Did you fight him?
or get his didgets? damn, what a homo

no, he wasn't related to shoalzie

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:26 am

You son of a bitch!

socal · Post by **socal** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:12 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
socal wrote:Mgo, you're not a hair past 30 are you?
24

Yeah, those youngins, always trying to reinvent themselves.

Did you steal Luther's AARP password or sumptin?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:21 pm

Socal, what the fuck are you driving at?

Have you not seen what I'm referring to? If you live in SoCal, you of of all people should know what I'm talking about.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:22 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:i always termed it as "heroin chic." much more derogatory.

Probably be a lot more derogatory if it even vaguely resembled "heroin chic."

Uhnm, just because you call someone/something a word that you heard on TV once, it doesn't really make it any more "derogatory"...it just makes you an uninformed douche.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:25 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I hate it when younger crowds are constantly trying to re-invent things that were cool when they didn't even exist.

Nooooooshit. RACK you my man.

That's a lot like when somebody 15 years younger than me tries to tell me what was and wasn't cool in terms of music and fashion and whatnot when I was in high school and stuff.

Truly the act of a retard.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:27 pm

That's a lot like when somebody 15 years younger than me tries to tell me what was and wasn't cool in terms of music and fashion and whatnot when I was in high school and stuff.

Link?

Where exactly did I reference anything cool as it related to when you were in high school?

Only Dins can barge in on a thread that has nothing to do with him, and instantly shine the spotlight on himself.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:30 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: Link?

William Cutting wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:I had me a slick pair of checkered Vans in high school.
Did you skate? If not you were a poser.

But, I'm sure you'll spin that into some petty semantics thing...I'm sure...while weak, a semantics debate would be your only recourse here, so it's fully expected.

Tell me about how Peter Gabriel was the antithesis of a "sellout" again, Magoo...

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:36 pm

But, I'm sure you'll spin that into some petty semantics thing...I'm sure...while weak, a semantics debate would be your only recourse here, so it's fully expected.

No semantics. I did call you out on that on another board.

Tell me about how Peter Gabriel was the antithesis of a "sellout" again, Magoo...

"sellout" is a matter of perception, and is a pointless debate. There's no conclusive way to prove he was or wasn't.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:42 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: "sellout" is a matter of perception, and is a pointless debate. There's no conclusive way to prove he was or wasn't.

Oh, I dunno...

We could take a poll of people who actually remember the early/mid 80's rather than those who rely on Mgo-SpecialEd for his "firsthand" accounts of that era...

And when those poll results come in somewhere around 100% in agreement with me, I'll shock your monkey with a big ol' sledgehammer, and we'll of course film it for future viewing by the masses, but naturally not until we advertise the "WORLD PREMIERE" of the video about every 3 minutes for about 7 months first.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:50 pm

The guy put out roughly 12 albums, you douche. If his sole goal was to "sellout", why didn't he just stop after "So"?

Care to argue in terms of reason and practicality for once in your entire posting career?

Considering his longevity, and dedication to his solo career, the sellout tag just doesn't make sense.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:54 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Considering his longevity, and dedication to his solo career, the sellout tag just doesn't make sense.

Reread what you wrote, and see if you can't figure out why this is one of the dumbest things written this side of Cicero.

socal · Post by **socal** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:56 pm

MgoEarlyBirdSpecial wrote:Socal, what the fuck are you driving at?

Have you not seen what I'm referring to? If you live in SoCal, you of of all people should know what I'm talking about.

Mgo,

Yes, I've seen the latest fashion fad in shades. Many kids your age are sporting those shades you so abhor. To me, with remarks like "I hate it when younger crowds are constantly trying to re-invent things that were cool when they didn't even exist", you're 24 years of age going on 66. Simply that.

Lighten up, Francis.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:01 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Reread what you wrote, and see if you can't figure out why this is one of the dumbest things written this side of Cicero.

Hmm. Let's see...I reference "longevity", realizing Gabriel has lasted almost 30 years as a solo artist.

Yet...I'm supposed to feel like an idiot, somehow.

Once again...

Care to argue in terms of reason and practicality for once in your entire posting career?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:02 pm

socal wrote:
Lighten up, Francis.

If everyone around here did that, this board would surely be a boring place.

Roll with it, my friend...

edit: how many more years do some of you fucks have to be around before you finally get WHY so many of us post here?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:15 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: Hmm. Let's see...I reference "longevity", realizing Gabriel has lasted almost 30 years as a solo artist.

Yet...I'm supposed to feel like an idiot, somehow.

Why yes.

If you're not feeling it yet...

I'm here to help.

So, you've somehow followed the Golden Road of Logic to a place where pandering to record exec's master plan of pshycological control of the mush-brained masses would hurt a singer's longevity, rather than enhance it?

It's actually possible that you're too fucking stupid to generate enough reasoning to feel like an idiot over this.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm

Dinsdale wrote:So, you've somehow followed the Golden Road of Logic to a place where pandering to record exec's master plan of pshycological control of the mush-brained masses would hurt a singer's longevity, rather than enhance it?

This is hilarious coming from the guy who clearly let MTV and mainstream radio form his negative opinion of PG.

Just because they chose to abuse some of his material, doesn't mean you had to let them form your opinion of him.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:46 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:This is hilarious coming from the guy who clearly let MTV and mainstream radio form his negative opinion of PG.

You need to brush up on the term "cause and effect."

Just because they chose to abuse some of his material, doesn't mean you had to let them form your opinion of him.

You need to brush up on the term "cause and effect."

Are you really so defenseless in this (non) debate that you actually just implied that PG was somehow an innocent victim of MTV's evil masterplan?

Yo GO, buddy. I'm sure that nowhere on those contracts did Gabriel's signature appear...

Dumbass.

PG wasn't just one of those againg rockers who jumped on the MTV Sellout Wagon -- he was their fucking leader. Whether it fits in to your visions of life in the 80's, it doesn't change fact. Him and Phil Collins wrote the freaking instruction book on selling out to the mainstream.

And Sting wrote the postscript.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:45 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:i always termed it as "heroin chic." much more derogatory.
Probably be a lot more derogatory if it even vaguely resembled "heroin chic."

Uhnm, just because you call someone/something a word that you heard on TV once, it doesn't really make it any more "derogatory"...it just makes you an uninformed douche.

it's a reference to runway models, douche.