Oh, this is just wrong!
DnvrFox is that you?
Oh, this is just wrong!
DnvrFox is that you?
What the hell were you looking for on ebay to find that?
"This is an original advertisement from a 1964 publication. The ad measures 5" x 13" and is in excellent condition, ready to be matted and framed."
Yes, I would like to hang that in my den, next to my psychedelic poster.
You have a psychedelic poster, too?? And here I thought I was the only one!Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Unfortunately sellers have figured out that cutting up magazines and selling them piecemeal is often more profitable than selling the magazine whole. The same goes for old atlases, the maps sold individually are often worth more than the complete book.Originally Posted by Raiyn
People collect ads and maps.
I can imagine some instances where selling the ads rather than the magazine would be justified. If the magazine was already in bad shape, the cover missing, for instance, or if some child in 1965 had cut out a lot pictures for an art project....
....or if a kidnapper had cut out letters for a ransom note.
Religion is a good thing for good people and a bad thing for bad people. --H. Richard Niebuhr
Even HISTORY is on my side!Originally Posted by Underwear Nazi
An ad before its time!
In 1964 it was legal to advertise all sorts or stupid and dangerous products. As I recall, the Flinstones used to shill for a cigarette company. I doubt that the Consumer Product Safety Commission would allow Jockey to advertise like this today.Originally Posted by DnvrFox
CPSC = OK
Originally Posted by Underwear Nazi
From the current Jockey Web Site
I saw your ad asking “Are you comfortable being” and thought that I should tell you my story. I was a former fat person at 293 lbs. and currently weigh 163 lbs. I have learned the importance of exercising daily in order to maintain my weight. I got laid off a while back so to keep busy while job searching I exercise about 35-40 hours/week. On an average week, I do 12-14 hours of indoor cycling, 8 hours on the stair master, 14 hours on the arc trainer/elliptical machine, 3 hours of weight lifting, 1 hour stretching and 2 hours of squash. I can say that my Jockey underwear holds up with my busy day and is extremely comfortable.
LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE CPSC REALLY KNOWS WHAT ADS TO ALLOW
Last edited by DnvrFox; 06-01-04 at 04:05 PM.
Originally Posted by DnvrFox
Nowhere does he say that he engages in the dangerous and unhealthy practice of wearing underwear under bicycle shorts.
Emphasis removed to help DnvrFox look a little less hysterical
I didn't know you also had dyslexia!Originally Posted by Underwear Nazi
Certainly the ability to come to a logical conclusion from facts presented in an article is an important intellectual function!
Obviously, they wouldn't be bragging about NOT wearing underwear in a Jockey ad!
Dnvr, Dnvr, Dnvr...Originally Posted by DnvrFox
I don't mind you taking pokes at me, but making fun of the learning disabled is just wrong...the way putting undies under bike shorts is wrong.
As for logical conclusions, the author of that screed implies that he wears underwear, but nowhere states nor even implies that he wears padded bike shorts.
It is obvious that you are not able to come to the proper conclusion using formal logic:
To wit -
1. This very bright person cycles indoors for 12-14 hours per week.
2. This very bright person knows enough to wear Jockey shorts
3. This very bright person is extremely comfortable in what he wears.
4. Obviously, if riding on a cycle, this person will be wearing appropriate attire - after all, he is very bright! And that attire would have to be padded biking shorts. Otherwise, he would not be very bright, but we have already clearly established that he IS very bright.
But, one of the characteristics of folks who don't know enough to wear undies under their padded biking shorts (these are the same not-so-brilliant folks who carry vinegar and woolite and pray to the sun god to kill the bacteria in their mobile petri dishes) is that they have a problem makng logical connections. That is proven, ipso facto, by the stated fact that they do NOT wear undies under their biking shorts.
So, there you have it. A fully logical PROOF of the premise that wearing undies under padded biking shorts is logically correct.
End of discussion. What more is there to say?
Last edited by DnvrFox; 06-02-04 at 12:41 PM.
Very bright? This pathetic panty boy can't hold a job. He spends 40 hours a week in the gym. He doesn't even ride a bicycle outdoors. In his spare time, he writes fan letters to underwear manufacturers. Oh, yeah, he's a mental giant--a regular Einstein.Originally Posted by DnvrFox
He probably has a note tacked to his mirror that says "Yellow=Front. Brown=Back." to help him put his whitey-tighteys on the right way.
Creative Writing - AOriginally Posted by Underwear Nazi
Logic - F
CPSC - They KNOW and APPROVE
Sorry, you can't win on this one!