As evidenced by several of his recent postings, rardman seems to have become the monitor of relevance. Hawg posted an interesting link. It's my opinion that a celebrity's hair is relevant any time someone wants to discuss it, not when rardman thinks it's OK. That's all I'm saying.
DaveDecker
Members Profile
Send Private Message
Find Members Posts
Add to Buddy List
Senior Moderator
Joined: November 28 2000
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3247
The way I see rardman's comment is that he was commenting that the people in question were more "relevant" in the past... not that he was criticizing Hawg for bringing them up. Hawg didn't seem to mind rardman's comment... maybe Hawg read it as I did.
HAWG
Members Profile
Send Private Message
Find Members Posts
Add to Buddy List
Lifetime Member
Joined: April 30 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6615
Actually, I took Rardman's comment as a slam. I was attempting to put something out there that would have us all look back at 2006 and some of the changes celebrities made with their hair. It seemed appropriate as the New Year is always a good time to do this; i.e. there are "Top 100" song shows and such. I'm cool with it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum