Imagine ... Mr. Clean-Cut slow-dancing with Ms. Gangsta.

sunnyone

cum grano salis
Silver Member
Maybe there really is room for both of them on the same prom floor.

Let’s do acknowledge the existence of the ‘how to dress / how not to dress’ discords in Forum Land. Specifically, the louche in rather marked contrast to the time-honored.

Then, let’s further consider that much of this textile bickering is merely symptomatic of a deeper division within the world of pool. Much deeper:

Younger v. Seasoned.

Urban v. Non.

Power v. Wedge.

Rap v. Rock.

Men v. Women.

America v. Them.

Balabushka v. Jump cues.

Hopers v. Nopers.

League v. Road.

Tush hogs v. Samoans.

Visionaries v. Visigoths.

Commentators v. Chatterers.

10-ball v. Bonus Ball.

Vegas v. Elsewhere.

Word-of-mouth v. Live streaming / chat rooms / blogs / forum flames / DVDs / YouTube / iPhones / TARP / et alia.

‘We can do it’ v. ‘No we can’t.’

Well … you take the point.

The divisions are wide … yet, perhaps, more horizontal than deep.

How so?

Back to fashion -- and I invoke this specific topic merely as the symbolic representation of the healthy competitive tensions (as well as the unhealthy fault lines) of our sport -- is there not a middle ground? A common sward?

Isn’t it conceivable, that in the world of pool, both points of view -- dress up / dress down -- can coexist? That both could be compatible? And complementary?

I believe that the ‘good girls love bad boys’ academy of assessment is real and is attractive to many.

Conversely, ‘dressing with respect’ appeals to the establishment cohort.

So … does it have to be an either / or?

Isn’t it possible that the couture-controversy might -- possibly! someday! -- appeal to that mythical corporate sponsor who could -- possibly! someday! -- be further entranced by a discerning fascination with the underbelly of our sport?

To wit: by recognizing (and celebrating!) some of our zany personalities?

By saluting some of our lively rivalries?

By nodding toward the gambling aspect? (Of course! Why try to deny reality? Especially when that wagering-reality could be romanticized.)

By spotlighting the eternal battle between the sexes?

Back to Mr. Clean-Cut and Ms. Gangster … soul-kissing? Perhaps not quite yet!

Think golf for tidiness. And poker for naughtiness.

Overstating the obvious is my life,

Sunny

P. S. Think Disney.
 
Looking at the back of a $20 Bill vs. Looking at the back of a $20 bill...on weed!!!

:grin:
 
Maybe there really is room for both of them on the same prom floor.

Let’s do acknowledge the existence of the ‘how to dress / how not to dress’ discords in Forum Land. Specifically, the louche in rather marked contrast to the time-honored. They can be "louche" as well !

Then, let’s further consider that much of this textile bickering is merely symptomatic of a deeper division within the world of pool. Much deeper:

Younger v. Seasoned.

Urban v. Non.

Power v. Wedge.

Rap v. Rock.

Men v. Women.

America v. Them.

Balabushka v. Jump cues. Huh ???

Hopers v. Nopers.

League v. Road.

Tush hogs v. Samoans.$50.00 on the Samoans!

Visionaries v. Visigoths.

Commentators v. Chatterers.

10-ball v. Bonus Ball.

Vegas v. Elsewhere. Vega$$ !!

Word-of-mouth v. Live streaming / chat rooms / blogs / forum flames / DVDs / YouTube / iPhones / TARP / et alia.

‘We can do it’ v. ‘No we can’t.’ <------ There is no "can't," only "will not"

Well … you take the point. {Lead}

The divisions are wide … yet, perhaps, more horizontal than deep.

How so?

Back to fashion -- and I invoke this specific topic merely as the symbolic representation of the healthy competitive tensions (as well as the unhealthy fault lines) of our sport -- is there not a middle ground? A common sward?

Isn’t it conceivable, that in the world of pool, both points of view -- dress up / dress down -- can coexist? That both could be compatible? And complementary?

I believe that the ‘good girls love bad boys’ academy of assessment is real and is attractive to many.

Conversely, ‘dressing with respect’ appeals to the establishment cohort.

So … does it have to be an either / or?

Isn’t it possible that the couture-controversy might -- possibly! someday! -- appeal to that mythical corporate sponsor who could -- possibly! someday! -- be further entranced by a discerning fascination with the underbelly of our sport?

To wit: by recognizing (and celebrating!) some of our zany personalities?

By saluting some of our lively rivalries?

By nodding toward the gambling aspect? (Of course! Why try to deny reality? Especially when that wagering-reality could be romanticized.) <---- Lookit da udder post,...... wagering is romantic in a sense.
By spotlighting the eternal battle between the sexes?

Back to Mr. Clean-Cut and Ms. Gangster … soul-kissing? Perhaps not quite yet!

Think golf for tidiness. And poker for naughtiness.

Overstating the obvious is my life, :rolleyes:

Sunny

P. S. Think Disney.
I am thinkin' Disney,... ya ya,............. ya ya ,......... (Simplistic chuckle)
I promised myself I would not post more today, BUT your verbose litany titillated my Hypothalamus. That is all I am saying,..... I'm outta here. :p
 
Is this the real life ?

is this just fantasy ?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
Open your eyes
Look up to the skies and see
I'm just a poor boy
I don't get the post at all
I need no sympathy
Little high ?:D

Sorry Sunny, will put some research hours into it and provide a more reasonable response.
 
leave the dapper dan at home , along with the black an white saddle shoes..
never cared for the Jimmy look much..But Jimmy himself suited just fine..
 
Back
Top