ha ha like a nice argument.
One thing i'm a bit confused about is what did mods actually STAND for? I know the clothes but what is this "attitude"?
Mod attitude was mainly based around style and music. Pete Meaden, face about town in the early sixties declared "Modism, Mod living, is an aphorism for clean living under difficult circumstances."
The first Mod movement came at a time when (working class) kids, for the first time, had a disposable income which gave them choices beyond that of their parents. They used this money in indulge in clothes, clubs, music, scooter...and drugs, and they discovered influences like the Jamaican rude boys, ska music and soul which they followed alongside British beat music, blues and jazz.
In short the Mod attitude was to avoid being dull and grey and enveloped by the post war grind, not dissimilar to the attitude that drove punk much later - it was kids wanting more than what was on offer and having it.
I don't think it matters if Mod was hard or not - it existed, like most youth cultures, in a whirlpool of fashion, music, violence and the draw of the crowd.
From the Mod movement came the Suedehead and the Skinhead movements, all of which nodded towards what became punk because these were people not interested in taking on hippy ideals, and were prone towards 'anti-establishment' (for want of a better phrase?) ideals.
The mod revival was an off-shoot of punk really, and many punk bands were covering old 'mod' songs already.
Two Tone and OI also developed out of the culture clashes between punk, skins, mods etc - so in short the movements were not clearly seperated, even if it appeared so for those within it, or presented like that in the press. The music and the fashion and violence were all a part of one another.
Punk probably had more posh kids taking part than the Mod movement.