Did the STYLEman thread just vanish?

[T4phage]

Quote:

(T4phage @ Feb. 25 2005,10:12)

Originally Posted by RJMan,Feb. 25 2005,18:54

Well Kabbaz, I was at Berkeley for professional neurotic (er, law) school, so maybe not all that younger.
"Boalt" man instead of RJman?
"Berkeley"phage instead of "T4"phage?
LSA phage has a certain 'cachet' don't you think

, since I did some work there... certainly better than GPBB phage.

 

[Bradford]

It's also a bit of a shock when "the naked guy" leaves the classroom as you enter...

Speaking of which - and to get back to clothing a bit - what ever happened to "the naked guy." I mean - how did he do job interviews - naked??

Do you think he found a job that allows him to be naked in the office? Could he have adopted the practice of wearing clothing and be a member right here in the StyleForum?

I keep expecting to see him on one of those VH1 "I love the 90's" shows or a "Where are they now?" show - but I have yet to see anyone tell his story.

Bradford

I hope I'm not the only one who ever wonders what happened to this guy.

 

[Manton]

what ever happened to "the naked guy."

Expelled for sexual harassment. I'm not making this up. They scoured the student conduct code for a pretext that could not be denounced as in any way falling back on morality or having a whiff of in loco parentis. That is what the administration came up with. As to what happened to him since, I have no idea.

 

[RJman]

As to what happened to him since, I have no idea.

Isn't there like a Naked Talk Show or something that he could be on?

My most WTF Berkeley moment came around midnight one Friday. I had dropped a friend off and was coming down his street about turn left onto Shattuck when right in front of me coasted a man, on a bicycle, in a pink bunny suit. I swear I wasn't high at the time. Very, very random. Much better than other Berkeley moments involving derelicts shouting obscenities into the air. And you can't get a decent cup of coffee for @$)*(@*$ there. Except for Cafe Fanny.

 

[globetrotter]

Quote:

(Manton @ Feb. 25 2005,11:47) As to what happened to him since, I have no idea.
Isn't there like a Naked Talk Show or something that he could be on? My most WTF Berkeley moment came around midnight one Friday.  I had dropped a friend off and was coming down his street about turn left onto Shattuck when right in front of me coasted a man, on a  bicycle, in a pink bunny suit.  I swear I wasn't high at the time. Very, very random.  Much better than other Berkeley moments involving derelicts shouting obscenities into the air.  And you can't get a decent cup of coffee for @$)*(@*$ there.  Except for Cafe Fanny.
I live in a village with a lot of aging hippies. that is the type of thing that I expect, too.

 

[esquire.]

BrianSD,

I think you also need to look at what major the students are studying, and not just at the Greek system, to determine how much anarchy and debauchery the uni will have. If you're a hardcore bio major and also a member of the Greek system, its hard to partake in the whirling madness of a fraternity if you're studying all the time. I'm sure all the trobulemakers up at Cal were probably humanities majors, and not busy holed up studying biochem. And, I've got to defend UCSD, which pales in comparison to SDSU, but it was still more rocking than a commuter school like UCI.

I must admit, the idea of a naked guy walking around campus cracks me up and wish there were more iconoclasts like that. Its sad that Cal would have to expell him on such trumped up charges. I imagine it must be difficult to explain that years later, when he goes to an interview and the interviewer realizes that before him sits the infamous naked guy from Cal. It has to be similar to what all those people on the 'Real World' from MTV encounter years later when they go into the real world and try to find a job. The interviewer will be like, "wow, you're kassandra from RealWorld Lake Havashu. You were such a ***** when you got all jealous about having a threesome. I don't know if you're a good fit; you didn't appear to be a team player."

 

[linux_pro]

Quote:

(Fabienne @ Feb. 25 2005,10:31) Can you elaborate on the last sentence?
Republican (small "r") government is hard to maintain. There are a lot of reasons for this. Anyway, throughout history, republicanism has been an anomaly. Before the founding of the United States, the only republic that can be said to have been truly successful was Rome. And even it eventually slithered into tyranny. It took 400 years or so, which is a pretty good run. I hope we last that long. Who knows?
Actually, it only took Rome 200 years to develop into a system with Emperor (dictatorship). About 250, actually. It then lasted another 1200 years.

 

[linux_pro]

Berkeley is considered in the top 3 computer science schools in the country. Hands down. Depending on who you talk to, it is better than MIT.

 

[Manton]

Actually, it only took Rome 200 years to develop into a system with Emperor (dictatorship).  About 250, actually.

No, the traditional date for the expulsion of the Tarquins and the foundation of the Republic by Junius Brutus is 510 BC.  (See Livy, I 58-60.)  The Senate named Caesar dictator-for-life in 44 BC.  (This is covered in a multitude of ancient sources.)  That's 466 years, by my count.

It then lasted another 1200 years.

Depends how you count.  One may say that the Empire lasted another 1500 years, until the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453.  But a more precise accounting woud be about 500 years, until 493, when Theodoric assasinated Odoacer and completed the barbarian conquest of Italy.  That was the end of the Western Empire, for good and all.

 

[bryce330]

But a more precise accounting woud be about 500 years, until 493, when Theodoric assasinated Odoacer and completed the barbarian conquest of Italy.  That was the end of the Western Empire, for good and all.

Actually, I think the end of the Empire is more often dated to 476 AD, when Odoacer deposed the last Roman Emperor (Romulus Augustus) and sent him into exile.

 

[Manton]

Actually, I think the end of the Empire is more often dated to 476 AD, when Odoacer deposed the last Roman Emperor (Romulus Augustus) and sent him into exile.

Yes but Zeno made a corrupt deal with Theodoric in hopes of getting the West back, recognizing the succession in the West through Theodoric if he made certain concessions to the East. Theodoric took the aid, but betrayed Xeno in the end.

Either way, it's not more than 500 years.

 

[T4phage]

Quote:

(Bradford @ Feb. 25 2005,14:43) what ever happened to "the naked guy."
Expelled for sexual harassment. Â I'm not making this up. Â They scoured the student conduct code for a pretext that could not be denounced as in any way falling back on morality or having a whiff of in loco parentis. Â That is what the administration came up with. As to what happened to him since, I have no idea.
The naked hippies doing a circle singalong came out in force in support of this guy.... this was during the period when the regents were trying to figure out what to do with him.

 

[T4phage]

Quote:

(linux_pro @ Feb. 25 2005,15:31) Actually, it only took Rome 200 years to develop into a system with Emperor (dictatorship). Â About 250, actually.
No, the traditional date for the expulsion of the Tarquins and the foundation of the Republic by Junius Brutus is 510 BC. Â (See Livy, I 58-60.) Â The Senate named Caesar dictator-for-life in 44 BC. Â (This is covered in a multitude of ancient sources.) Â That's 466 years, by my count.
I personally thought that the date of 510/509 BC with the establishment of the Consulship a bit too pat, since most, if not all the other offices and laws were not set yet, for example the 12 Tablets were a few years later. As for the demise of the Republic... I would put its start during the period of the Gracchi, since they exposed the fundamental problems of the Republican government vis a vis the governing of an empire... And how "independent" was the Senate anyway during the reign of Marius? Sulla? Pompey? the Triumverate? The senatores were just hollow men rubberstamping the decisions of the current 'first man'.

 

[Manton]

I personally thought that the date of 510/509 BC with the establishment of the Consulship a bit too pat, since most, if not all the other offices and laws were not set yet, for example the 12 Tablets were a few years later.

Well, this whole period of Rome's history is shrouded in myth.  I mean, can we really believe that everything that Livy records in his first five or ten books went down exactly the way he says it did?  Sometimes I'm not sure even he believes it.

In any case, the establishment of the Republic does seem to have taken place around 500 BC.

As for the demise of the Republic... I would put its start during the period of the Gracchi, since they exposed the fundamental problems of the Republican government vis a vis the governing of an empire...  And how "independent" was the Senate anyway during the reign of Marius? Sulla? Pompey? the Triumverate?  The senatores were just hollow men rubberstamping the decisions of the current 'first man'.

Yes, certainly, that's when it all started.  Yet A) The Gracchi failed, and were assasinated; and B) the Romans were still freely electing consuls and tribunes until Caesar took over, and the fortunes of each party waxed and waned; in other words, politics was alive, if not well.  The Republic lived on after the Gracchi.

And, in any case, the Gracchi's heyday was about 120 BC.  So even if one dates the demise of the Republic to the Gracchi, that still gives it 390 years of life before it became a tyranny.

 

[ernest]

The best univeristy is Tu(s?)lane.