LizzieMaine said:I'm not sure where you're getting this, but both the Senator and I have stressed from the very beginning of the the thread that the whole concept isn't about who is or isn't "more vintage." Some people may be reading that into the thread, but they're missing the entire point of it if they are.
The reason the thread was started was because there was no suitable word to describe a particular type of "vintage living" *that is motivated for a particular set of reasons.* If all vintage types were motivated by the same reasons, we wouldn't need such a word to describe it. There are many different reasons, all of them equally valid. If those aren't *your* reasons, fine. But those of us who *are* motivated by that particular set of reasons would simply like to have a convenient shorthand way to describe it, and it honestly astounds me that it's become this big a deal. Did the rockabillies have to go thru all this when they named themselves?
Maybe I missed it, but where does it say that this is about motives. I understood it to be about full time vintage living.
If you got 100 ativists in the same room you may find it hard to find the same motivation amongst any two of them.
And I dare say, while I don't know him, the senator, I suspect, lives a lifestyle that would have been perfectly acceptable in certain circles of the past era, but would be frowned upon today by certain members of this forum and certain people who consider themselves atavists.
I may be way off base. I just like the image of him galavanting around New York from swank bar to swank bar, dressed in his sharpest clothes, with a different lovely lady on his arm each night. but who knows. perhaps he spends his evenings at home darning his socks, saving money, and canning peaches.