It's very annoying when you have an idea for a great post in your head and somewhere during the course of the day it vanishes. Of course, I know I should have written it down before I forgot it, but this time I didn't. Some master post gone for good.
Meanwhile, it's that time again: the checking-up-on-of-the-HitTail-Top-Ten.
Of course there are plenty of old favourites here (sorry, acne treatment reviews hasn't made it yet, for all those who think it should have). In order, they are:
1. athletes hand - sans apostrophe, as you might expect.
2. mike crowl - surprise, surprise - and sans capitals.
3. the great divorce notes - a perennial. One of these days I'm going to put some real notes about the Great Divorce on here.
4. googleads.g.doubleclick.net - a total newcomer, which meant nothing to me. I checked it out on the Net, and it brings up the I'm Feeling Lucky page on Google. Hmm. Can I really have been the end result of so many lucky searches?
5. nintendo jewellery - with jewellery spelt correctly, you'll notice.
6. brent stavig - our old friend whose main claim to fame now seems to be the fact that he turns up on my blog!
7. james berardinelli - considering that I haven't mentioned James' name for some time on here, it's interesting that he still gets on this list.
8. karl maugham - only because I misspelt his name so often.
9. shrinking shirts - a constant problem for people, obviously.
10. athletes fingers - just in case you missed number one on the list.
Those who only made it into the top twenty are a real mixed bunch:
mikecrowlsscribblepad.blogspot.com - why would anyone actually search on that?
athlete hand
postile
lesley martin euthanasia
the great divorce chapter summaries
henry lewis gates
here lies eric ambler
religious jeans
crowl
john gray philosopher
I know I've written about all these, but surely other people have too? I'm not going to go further down the list, but Chrissy Popadics only made it to 21st place this time, and how do you pronounce Boise, 22 - and 26 and 28 and at least once in each of the next decades as well. The people of Boise must wonder why the name of their town is such a problem for the rest of the world. Maybe it's time to change it.
Mike Crowl is the world's leading authority on his own opinions on art, music, movies, and writing.
Pages
- Home
- About Mike Crowl and his books
- Columns from Column 8
- Music I have writ
- One Easter Evening
- When Dad went Fishing
- The Night the Wind Blew the Roof Off
- Plays and Productions since 2004
- The Disenchanted Wizard - the original opening chapters
- Mike Crowl's Scribble Pad
- Taonga columns by the Juggling Bookie
Showing posts with label jeans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jeans. Show all posts
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Monday, June 25, 2007
Religious Jeans?
Skipping around the Net I was taken with the phrase true religion jeans which I naturally thought had some religious connection, and was intrigued to find out what it was. But no, true religion jeans are jeans with about as much connection to religion as you could find. It gets more complex. There are True Religion Destroyed jeans, which take fashion to a ‘ripped new level,’ and Bobby Vintage wash jeans that are apparently ‘comfortably mythical jeans’. Comfortably mythical? What the heck does that mean?
Talking about fashion like this reminds that I’ve meant to comment for some time on the curious thing about women’s fashion magazines, or any magazines that feature fashion as part of the package. Doesn’t it seem odd that these magazines often display women in alluring, even sexual poses, yet the magazines are for women? Feminists used to complain that men’s magazines featured women in near nakedness, but women’s mags are often just the same. How does that figure? Are women who read these mags only focused on what women wear and how they look in those clothes? I guess they must be. Certainly these mags aren’t in any way intended for men, though no doubt some men glance through them. Are the mags intending to say that You, the Reader, will look as alluring as this model looks? I don’t think so, somehow. I think they’re saying that other women will be envious of how you look if you wear this gear. I suspect men don’t even come into the equation.
But I could be wrong. Let me know what you think.
Talking about fashion like this reminds that I’ve meant to comment for some time on the curious thing about women’s fashion magazines, or any magazines that feature fashion as part of the package. Doesn’t it seem odd that these magazines often display women in alluring, even sexual poses, yet the magazines are for women? Feminists used to complain that men’s magazines featured women in near nakedness, but women’s mags are often just the same. How does that figure? Are women who read these mags only focused on what women wear and how they look in those clothes? I guess they must be. Certainly these mags aren’t in any way intended for men, though no doubt some men glance through them. Are the mags intending to say that You, the Reader, will look as alluring as this model looks? I don’t think so, somehow. I think they’re saying that other women will be envious of how you look if you wear this gear. I suspect men don’t even come into the equation.
But I could be wrong. Let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)