No Pants Day

**Colin** · 27th April 05, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Thistle Stop

The 'Ugly American' is really a myth.

Not when you are travelling outside of the US it's not. I have run into the stereotypical "Ugly American" in every foreign place I have ever been, as well as in my own city. It is more about a lack of education or desire to learn things that aren't American, and to push their beliefs on the locals. The down side, is that the one person sticks out more than the 25 others that you meet that are just awesome people.

Having said that, I have yet to meet one of these people when they are on there home soil. Americans are some of the nicest people when they are showing off their home, and I hope that helps disspell the "ugly" label in time. I enjoy travelling in the US, for the people as much as the destination.

Like all stereotypes, a select few seem to perpetrate the rumour and ruin it for the majority of people that do not fall into the stereotypical category. Mind you, I find that once people find that they are being type cast, that they do little to disspell that rumour.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to put the dogs and sled away before I get back in the igloo, and open my beer and make my beans and maple syrup, before the hockey game starts.

**THISLPT** · 27th April 05, 11:04 AM

Well then....it looks like the tartan d*ck sock will be the attire of the day!!

**MDR-V300** · 27th April 05, 12:09 PM

http://www.rednoseday.com/

Now, I think [I hope] you can all agree that comic relief's Red Nose Day is "A Good Thing".
It's ridiculous and fun, and benefits a charity.
But WAIT! Red noses are signs of drunkenness, foolishness, alcoholism! The downfall of society!
Or... they're just red noses.

Boxer shorts are no more indecent than regular shorts are, except in your minds. They cover the exact same [often more] amount of skin!

Yet... when the kilt is seen as 'exciting' despite covering yet more skin, you are all quick to point out that there's nothing immoral about wearing the kilt, and that it's nobody's business whether you've got underpants on or not.

Somebody explain to me how it's okay to wear one garment that's not the norm and not another garment that is not the norm if both garments cover up the nudie bits. Anyone? I didn't think so.

This day [which I wasn't even a fan of until I read some of your fearful and closed-minded reactions] does not benefit any charity, and I feel that it shouldn't. If it did, it would be forced to change completely to comply with imaginary standards of decency, and lose its heart. Society needs art [and absurdity can be art], and this and other expressions of absurdity are wonderful and healing aspects of society.
If you saw a businessman all dressed up, but without pants - you'd laugh. Maybe not out loud, but it would brighten your day to see a suit, tie, briefcase, dress shoes, black socks, and -blam- pasty white legs where the pants should be.

You've surprised me.

**Casey** · 27th April 05, 12:17 PM

I'm surprised you're surprised. This is a very typical reaction on this forum.

(Now invoking Hank's rule of "letting things go"!)

**Galant** · 27th April 05, 01:14 PM

Well if I may, I'd just like to drop in with a deep and meaningful point:

Within the UK the term 'Pants' can be used for either trousers or underpants. It depends on where you are. Growing up in Lancashire I was entirely familiar with the use of both trousers and pants synonymously. Not until I arrived at Uni did I come across the usage of 'pants' for underwear.

Interestingly I think it would be true of my experience to say that by far the most common usage of the word 'pants' that I heard in my Uni days was as an adjective or exclamation. "That film was utter pants!", or, "Pants! I forgot to finish my thesis!".

Just to let you know.

**bubba** · 27th April 05, 01:48 PM

I don't own any pants. My wife is allergic to dogs.

**Tim Walker** · 27th April 05, 02:33 PM

I suspect that to know a nation you have to do what Colin has done-travel about the country and meet the people. Otherwise what else do you have to go on except stereotypes?

**Colin** · 27th April 05, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

I suspect that to know a nation you have to do what Colin has done-travel about the country and meet the people. Otherwise what else do you have to go on except stereotypes?

But sadly, most people will only ever meet tourists and judge a nation based on those they meet, instead of being one themselves.

I have only done the western (Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada) and Florida, but the people were great in all those areas. I haven't even made it all the way across my own country, only as far as Quebec, but I hopefully have time to do that one of these days. Back to Europe first though.

**Doc Hudson** · 27th April 05, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Colin

I haven't even made it all the way across my own country, only as far as Quebec,

I grew up near the Gulf Coast and we get lots of Canatian tourists during the Winter months. Most of them seem to be from Quebec.

Quite frankly, until I met some Canadians NOT from Quebec, I had a pretty low opinion of Canadians.

After I met some folks from Ontario and points west, I realized it was the Quebecois who were pains in the butt, not Canadians in general.