| Retro-futuristic! [message #125156] |
So, 04 September 2005 03:03 |
|
I am into the whole retro-futuristic gestalt. What is retro-futuristic?
It's like the "Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow" thing. ~ The
Future~, the way people of the past might have seen it.
Here's an example: I just bought this new bicycle: I bought it because
I liked the retro-futuristic style.
http://www.electrabike.com/04/bikes/05bikes/str/05_str_29.ht ml
I wanted a bike that I could just ride around my neighborhood, and I
found a bike shop that offered the Electra line. I had to special-order
this baby. It's a comfy three-speed with coaster brakes. _I love it_.
Riding it makes me feel like a kid again. :)
My 21st century cell phone has the 20th century STAR TREK ringtone.
YES! I feel a childlike thrill when I flip open my communicator-style
clamshell phone.
That's why I love to watch and re-watch TOS: Because it reminds me of
my youth, and of my girlhood dreams. And also because it's STILL kickass
entertainment. :) Just like riding a new old-fashioned bike is. :)
Your Trekkie pal,
Laura Goodwin
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #126669 ] |
Di, 06 September 2005 00:48 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:431A47C5.50905 [at] lauragoodwin.org...
>I am into the whole retro-futuristic gestalt. What is retro-futuristic?
>It's like the "Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow" thing. ~ The Future~,
>the way people of the past might have seen it.
>
> Here's an example: I just bought this new bicycle: I bought it because I
> liked the retro-futuristic style.
>
> http://www.electrabike.com/04/bikes/05bikes/str/05_str_29.ht ml
>
> I wanted a bike that I could just ride around my neighborhood, and I found
> a bike shop that offered the Electra line. I had to special-order this
> baby. It's a comfy three-speed with coaster brakes. _I love it_. Riding
> it makes me feel like a kid again. :)
That's a girls bike. A boys bike has a straight bar between the legs.
>
> My 21st century cell phone has the 20th century STAR TREK ringtone. YES!
> I feel a childlike thrill when I flip open my communicator-style clamshell
> phone.
>
> That's why I love to watch and re-watch TOS: Because it reminds me of my
> youth, and of my girlhood dreams. And also because it's STILL kickass
> entertainment. :) Just like riding a new old-fashioned bike is. :)
>
>
> Your Trekkie pal,
> Laura Goodwin
>
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #126670 ] |
Di, 06 September 2005 01:21 |
|
Nog wrote:
>> http://www.electrabike.com/04/bikes/05bikes/str/05_str_29.ht ml
> That's a girls bike. A boys bike has a straight bar between the legs.
That's correct.
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #126671 ] |
Di, 06 September 2005 17:24 |
|
> I wanted a bike that I could just ride around my neighborhood,
then why did you pick this one?
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #126672 ] |
Di, 06 September 2005 19:13 |
|
"Nog" <nognog [at] adelphia.net> wrote in
> That's a girls bike. A boys bike has a straight bar between the legs.
The knacker buster bar.
Karl Johanson
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #126673 ] |
Di, 06 September 2005 19:19 |
|
in article MwiTe.29383$YC1.14714 [at] fe08.lga, Roderick Rutlidge at
R_Rutlidge [at] barnsandnoble.com wrote on 9/6/05 8:24 AM:
>> I wanted a bike that I could just ride around my neighborhood,
>
> then why did you pick this one?
>
and it what way is it retro-futuristic? It looks like every third girl's
Schwinn to me.
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #126674 ] |
Di, 06 September 2005 19:20 |
|
in article V6kTe.112901$Hk.50193 [at] pd7tw1no, Karl Johanson at
karljohanson [at] shaw.ca wrote on 9/6/05 10:13 AM:
> "Nog" <nognog [at] adelphia.net> wrote in
>
>> That's a girls bike. A boys bike has a straight bar between the legs.
>
> The knacker buster bar.
>
> Karl Johanson
>
>
Did anybody else think it made more sense for guys bikes NOT to have that
bar? That they sort of got it backwards?
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #126675 ] |
Di, 06 September 2005 19:55 |
|
"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:BF431DD1.4F6C3%ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net...
> in article V6kTe.112901$Hk.50193 [at] pd7tw1no, Karl Johanson at
> karljohanson [at] shaw.ca wrote on 9/6/05 10:13 AM:
>
>> "Nog" <nognog [at] adelphia.net> wrote in
>>
>>> That's a girls bike. A boys bike has a straight bar between the legs.
>>
>> The knacker buster bar.
>>
>> Karl Johanson
>>
>>
> Did anybody else think it made more sense for guys bikes NOT to have that
> bar? That they sort of got it backwards?
Yep, I always thought so. Kind of like the balance beam is an event for
*women* gymnasts.
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #126676 ] |
Di, 06 September 2005 20:15 |
|
in article OKkTe.15846$qY1.676 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Marcovaldo at Marcovaldo [at] worldnet.att.net wrote on 9/6/05 10:55 AM:
> "ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:BF431DD1.4F6C3%ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net...
>> in article V6kTe.112901$Hk.50193 [at] pd7tw1no, Karl Johanson at
>> karljohanson [at] shaw.ca wrote on 9/6/05 10:13 AM:
>>
>>> "Nog" <nognog [at] adelphia.net> wrote in
>>>
>>>> That's a girls bike. A boys bike has a straight bar between the legs.
>>>
>>> The knacker buster bar.
>>>
>>> Karl Johanson
>>>
>>>
>> Did anybody else think it made more sense for guys bikes NOT to have that
>> bar? That they sort of got it backwards?
>
> Yep, I always thought so. Kind of like the balance beam is an event for
> *women* gymnasts.
>
>
I guess the assumption is it's to accommodate your skirt, but then why make
the one with the bar that can hurt you at all?
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #126677 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 01:33 |
|
ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
> in article V6kTe.112901$Hk.50193 [at] pd7tw1no, Karl Johanson at
> karljohanson [at] shaw.ca wrote on 9/6/05 10:13 AM:
>
>
>>"Nog" <nognog [at] adelphia.net> wrote in
>>
>>
>>>That's a girls bike. A boys bike has a straight bar between the legs.
>>
>>The knacker buster bar.
>>
>>Karl Johanson
>>
>>
>
> Did anybody else think it made more sense for guys bikes NOT to have that
> bar? That they sort of got it backwards?
>
LOL I agree. Also, guys not women should have been riding horses
side-saddle. :)
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #126678 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 01:35 |
|
Roderick Rutlidge wrote:
>>I wanted a bike that I could just ride around my neighborhood,
>
>
> then why did you pick this one?
I like that it's a cruiser, not a mountian bike, not a racing bike -
just a BIKE bike. :)
I chose the model I did because I liked the style. Didn't I already
answer that question?
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #127939 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 19:39 |
|
"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net> wrote
> I guess the assumption is it's to accommodate your skirt, but then why
> make
> the one with the bar that can hurt you at all?
Now I wonder what the mens bikes in Scotland are like. I don't wonder
about it very much though.
Karl Johanson
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #127940 ] |
Mi, 07 September 2005 19:56 |
|
"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> I guess the assumption is it's to accommodate your skirt, but then why
> make
> the one with the bar that can hurt you at all?
Shhh. You'll give some trial lawyer ideas.
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #127979 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 17:54 |
|
"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:BF431DD1.4F6C3%ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net...
> in article V6kTe.112901$Hk.50193 [at] pd7tw1no, Karl Johanson at
> karljohanson [at] shaw.ca wrote on 9/6/05 10:13 AM:
>
>> "Nog" <nognog [at] adelphia.net> wrote in
>>
>>> That's a girls bike. A boys bike has a straight bar between the legs.
>>
>> The knacker buster bar.
>>
>> Karl Johanson
>>
>>
> Did anybody else think it made more sense for guys bikes NOT to have that
> bar? That they sort of got it backwards?
>
> --
>
> You Can't Stop the Signal
>
The girls' bike should have had a big black rubber dildo instead of a seat.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #127987 ] |
Do, 08 September 2005 23:03 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:11hs9u61a8i1960 [at] news.supernews.com...
> Roderick Rutlidge wrote:
>>>I wanted a bike that I could just ride around my neighborhood,
>>
>>
>> then why did you pick this one?
>
> I like that it's a cruiser, not a mountian bike, not a racing bike - just
> a BIKE bike. :)
>
> I chose the model I did because I liked the style. Didn't I already
> answer that question?
I was poking fun at how corny it is - so you wouldn't be able to ride it in
the neighborhood. It's like a big fat woman: fun to ride as long as nobody
sees you.
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #127992 ] |
Fr, 09 September 2005 02:12 |
|
Roderick Rutlidge wrote:
> I was poking fun at how corny it is - so you wouldn't be able to ride it in
> the neighborhood.
Hmm, I don't think that's going to work. Why would you want that anyway?
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #129146 ] |
Fr, 09 September 2005 15:58 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:11i1kqgtk6vto83 [at] news.supernews.com...
> Roderick Rutlidge wrote:
>
>> I was poking fun at how corny it is - so you wouldn't be able to ride it
>> in the neighborhood.
>
> Hmm, I don't think that's going to work. Why would you want that anyway?
Geez you're thick. Nevermind.
|
|
|
| Re: Retro-futuristic! [message #129166 ] |
Sa, 10 September 2005 06:24 |
|
Roderick Rutlidge wrote:
> Nevermind.
::shrug::
|
|
|
