PDA

View Full Version : Followup: MJ's Death Ruled A Homicide


Pages : [1] 2

Davian93
08-24-2009, 07:37 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-08-24-jackson-search-warrant_N.htm

Anyone surprised at all about this?

Ivhon
08-24-2009, 07:41 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-08-24-jackson-search-warrant_N.htm

Anyone surprised at all about this?

More importantly...does anyone care?

Davian93
08-24-2009, 07:47 PM
More importantly...does anyone care?

Nope, not one bit. I didn't care when he died either. Just thought the original thread was worthy of a followup.

Frenzy
08-24-2009, 10:11 PM
gay marriage, asmodean, religion, politics.



betcha thought this thread couldn't be more pointless.

Belazamon
08-24-2009, 11:55 PM
gay marriage, asmodean, religion, politics.Usedta be that if my religion said Asmodean couldn't get gay-married, then dammitall, he couldn't get gay-married. Now it's all politicalized, and we gotta make nice to everyone and let 'em get gay-married if they wanna, even though it's a SIN AGAINST GOD.

Gorrammit.

Sinistrum
08-25-2009, 03:08 AM
What has two thumbs and doesn't give a shit?







*points at self with his thumbs* THIS GUY!

Zanguini
08-25-2009, 07:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84Lih7vv3zQ

This is how i imagine sini.... without the lab coat.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-25-2009, 08:00 AM
Captain Apathy.

Sei'taer
08-25-2009, 08:21 AM
Look, you have 148 plastic surgeries. Go after it until your nose falls off and you look like something out of a horror movie, and you'd be addicted to the anesthesia too.


Anyway, I can't be bothered right now.

GonzoTheGreat
08-25-2009, 08:29 AM
Look, you have 148 plastic surgeries. Go after it until your nose falls off and you look like something out of a horror movie, and you'd be addicted to the anesthesia too.Cher didn't become addicted, did she?
True, her nose did not fall off, but that may be because it was made of a better quality plastic.

Zanguini
08-25-2009, 08:40 AM
When you build your own kid friendly amusement park in your back yard, sometimes you have to make sacrifices. And sometimes that sacrifice is your plastic. It's an easily understandable reaction.

Sei'taer
08-25-2009, 09:49 AM
Cher didn't become addicted, did she?
True, her nose did not fall off, but that may be because it was made of a better quality plastic.

Betcha MJ had more surgeries than Cher.

jason wolfbrother
08-25-2009, 09:56 AM
but only because she had the advantage of starting already white. MJ had to make up ground somehow

GonzoTheGreat
08-25-2009, 10:24 AM
Cher has a sense of humor, which almost certainly isn't artificial. During an interview, she once referred to herself as "plastic surgery poster girl".
I don't think MJ ever made it to the PS posters, did he?

Gilshalos Sedai
08-25-2009, 10:26 AM
That's because Cher still looks like a human being.

Zanguini
08-25-2009, 10:46 AM
However she no longer sounds like one.

Terez
08-25-2009, 12:53 PM
Did she ever?

Kurtz
08-25-2009, 01:15 PM
Rest in Peace America's sweet prince :(

Sei'taer
08-25-2009, 01:55 PM
Rest in Peace America's sweet prince :(
~whispers~ He was the King of Pop. Prince is the...uh Prince.

Zanguini
08-25-2009, 02:40 PM
Prince is http://happyvalleynews.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/prince_symbol2.jpg

Dragon Thief
08-25-2009, 05:29 PM
I thought Prince rescinded symbol bit and went back to Prince?

Anyways. Just to make a rehash - I'm fairly sure MJ, at least, had two souls. Robert Jordan can't take that away from me.

One black man, one white woman. Both made of plastic, of course.

tworiverswoman
08-25-2009, 06:10 PM
All by itself this thread let me give out over half-dozen rep points. Nice, you guys!

Dragon Thief
08-25-2009, 06:16 PM
For whatever reason, I just saw this for the first time in your sig, TRU.

"once I'm naked, i can't get any cooler!" - Camel

I leave it to Gonzo to interpret the sig, in ways only he can.

Sodas
08-25-2009, 10:12 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-08-24-jackson-search-warrant_N.htm

MJ's death ruled a homicide.

Anyone surprised at all about this?

He didn't die the Final Death? damn. Now I gotta worry about Zombie MJ.

jason wolfbrother
08-25-2009, 11:41 PM
How will you be able to tell?

Frenzy
08-26-2009, 12:37 AM
Zombie MJ has more brains.



cuz he ate them.

Dragon Thief
08-26-2009, 12:48 AM
But, more importantly, does Zombie MJ still grab his crotch?

GonzoTheGreat
08-26-2009, 03:35 AM
But, more importantly, does Zombie MJ still grab his crotch?Or anyone else's?

Kurtz
08-26-2009, 05:50 AM
But, more importantly, does Zombie MJ still grab his crotch?

Quite gingerly, I would imagine

Zanguini
08-26-2009, 07:54 AM
Originally Posted by Dragon Thief
But, more importantly, does Zombie MJ still grab his crotch?
Only when directed by oliver stone.



back and to the left.

Sei'taer
08-26-2009, 08:38 AM
Only when directed by oliver stone.



back and to the left.

Hmmm...maybe thats why his nose fell off? Either that, or they were packing the extra nose parts into other....parts, and he decided he needed the other um more bigger?

yks 6nnetu hing
08-26-2009, 08:45 AM
Hmmm...maybe thats why his nose fell off? Either that, or they were packing the extra nose parts into other....parts, and he decided he needed the other um more bigger?
you mean like this:

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2008/05/08/bigger-stronger-faster-post.jpg

Sei'taer
08-26-2009, 08:56 AM
Um...noooo...although there might be a pump involved.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-26-2009, 09:08 AM
Um...noooo...although there might be a pump involved.
a pump... a pump....


http://www.shoesjunky.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/christian-louboutin-studded-pumps-736138.jpg

Gilshalos Sedai
08-26-2009, 09:11 AM
~instant shoe lust~

yks 6nnetu hing
08-26-2009, 09:35 AM
~instant shoe lust~
when I was a little girl I wanted to become a ballerina when I grew up
http://www.dontknowitfromadam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/mj-leather-shoes.jpg
So did Michael, I guess

jason wolfbrother
08-26-2009, 09:40 AM
ROFLMAO yks you are making my cheeks hurt from trying not to laugh. people are sleeping here. ;):cool: :D :D :D :D :D :cool: :rolleyes:

Ishara
08-26-2009, 09:44 AM
Ah, I love Laboutains. It's that sassy red sole.

Davian93
08-26-2009, 10:37 AM
Ah, I love Laboutains. It's that sassy red sole.

Soon to be Mrs. Dav has a pair of them...she made sure to explain the importance of the red sole...repeatedly.

Ishara
08-26-2009, 11:09 AM
Soon to be Mrs. Dav has a pair of them SHUT UP! I thin it's totally unfair. She has Cole Haans and Loubs? Am seriously coveting her closet right now... :(

Davian93
08-26-2009, 11:15 AM
SHUT UP! I thin it's totally unfair. She has Cole Haans and Loubs? Am seriously coveting her closet right now... :(

I personally like the Cole Haan boots better...but what do I know.

She doesn't have a ton of shoes but she does have some fairly nice pairs...and unfortunately pricey pairs. I just want a pair of Ferragamo loafers darnit.

GonzoTheGreat
08-26-2009, 11:18 AM
SHUT UP! I thin it's totally unfair. She has Cole Haans and Loubs? Am seriously coveting her closet right now... :(That's all right, I think. Check:
Exodus|20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
No closets mentioned*, so you are without sin.

* The last clause would have referred to Dav's (future) wive's closet, in the time that wives still were property. Since that is no longer the case, you're off the hook on this one too.

Davian93
08-26-2009, 11:20 AM
That's all right, I think. Check:
Exodus|20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
No closets mentioned*, so you are without sin.

* The last clause would have referred to Dav's (future) wive's closet, in the time that wives still were property. Since that is no longer the case, you're off the hook on this one too.

LOL

Zanguini
08-26-2009, 11:35 AM
SHUT UP! I thin it's totally unfair. She has Cole Haans and Loubs? Am seriously coveting her closet right now... :(


Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors shoe closet.

Thou shalt buy your wife shoes, or thou shalt not have sex.

Davian93
08-26-2009, 11:37 AM
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors shoe closet.

Thou shalt buy your wife shoes, or thou shalt not have sex.

And the number of the counting shall be 3, not 2, not 4 but 3...5 is way off.

GonzoTheGreat
08-26-2009, 11:51 AM
And the number of the counting shall be 3, not 2, not 4 but 3...5 is way off.To be honest, when it comes to buying shoes, an even number is usually considered more polite.

Sei'taer
08-26-2009, 11:54 AM
~raises hand~ um excuse me. Some around here don't do fashion and don't know what red soles mean on lobans or whatever...

Davian93
08-26-2009, 11:57 AM
~raises hand~ um excuse me. Some around here don't do fashion and don't know what red soles mean on lobans or whatever...

Its a really expensive designer brand of shoes for women. Their signature mark is a bright red sole (see photo above). All of the shoes have that same sole regardless of anything else...its their calling card.

EDIT: I think they range in price from around $500 on the low end to $1500 max.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-26-2009, 12:01 PM
Well, don't worry, I'd never be able to own a pair of those. Couldn't anyway. If I spent that kind of money on a shoe, I'd have to never wear it. I tend to ruin shoes rather quickly.

Davian93
08-26-2009, 12:02 PM
Well, don't worry, I'd never be able to own a pair of those. Couldn't anyway. If I spent that kind of money on a shoe, I'd have to never wear it. I tend to ruin shoes rather quickly.

They rarely ever get won and never outside...its only for special occasions and times when she knows she wont be hoofing it around town (the soles would wear off/down on sidewalks). Probably not worth the cost to be honest but I do tend to buy her expensive things for some crazy reason.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-26-2009, 12:04 PM
I'm hard on them on the inside, Dav, not the outside.

Sei'taer
08-26-2009, 12:09 PM
I have a pair of Danner boots that I wear at work. I have a pair of New Balance and a pair dress shoes of unknown brand. The Danners did cost $248 though.

Brita
08-26-2009, 12:29 PM
And the number of the counting shall be 3, not 2, not 4 but 3...5 is way off.
http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/monty-python-415x242.jpg

Sinistrum
08-26-2009, 01:20 PM
Jeebus people settle down. They're just shoes, and certainly not worth dropping $500-1500 on them unless they are indestructible and let you fly.

Davian93
08-26-2009, 01:57 PM
Jeebus people settle down. They're just shoes, and certainly not worth dropping $500-1500 on them unless they are indestructible and let you fly.

http://ferragamo.neimanmarcus.com/store/catalog/prod.jhtml?itemId=prod6420003&parentId=cat127&masterId=cat125&cmCat=cat000000cat102cat125cat127&index=5&tid=C9

They don't let you fly but I'd still drop $500 on them if I had the spare cash.

JSUCamel
08-26-2009, 01:59 PM
They don't let you fly but I'd still drop $500 on them if I had the spare cash.

Then we'd have to tax you more, because you're obviously wealthy.

If you can afford $500 shoes, you can afford to pay more in taxes.

Wasn't that your logic? The wealthy can afford to pay it, so they might as well.

Davian93
08-26-2009, 02:00 PM
Then we'd have to tax you more, because you're obviously wealthy.

If you can afford $500 shoes, you can afford to pay more in taxes.

Wasn't that your logic? The wealthy can afford to pay it, so they might as well.

But I can't afford them...so no taxes yet.

EDIT: Besides, I somewhat recently got a $11K raise. After taxes, I saw a whopping $6K addition to my net pay...woohoo! That's 54.5% of the gross after all taxes taken out. I think I am taxed enough at this point.

JSUCamel
08-26-2009, 02:10 PM
I think I am taxed enough at this point.

So does everyone else. Your point?

Davian93
08-26-2009, 02:11 PM
So does everyone else. Your point?

I'm still trying to figure out your point...

JSUCamel
08-26-2009, 02:17 PM
I'm still trying to figure out your point...

Just commenting on your stupid idea that the rich should be taxed simply because they can afford it.

Davian93
08-26-2009, 02:19 PM
Just commenting on your stupid idea that the rich should be taxed simply because they can afford it.

There was a bit more to it than that. Considering I was making that argument in support of a public healthcare plan, I thought you would be more supportive of it.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-26-2009, 02:24 PM
Ugh. From MJ to shoes to taxes. That's a hell of a tangent. What next, how the inheritance taxes are going to wipe out his kids' inheritance?

Kurtz
08-26-2009, 02:25 PM
Just commenting on your stupid idea that the rich should be taxed simply because they can afford it.

Not that stupid an idea. Debatable at the very least.

Sinistrum
08-26-2009, 02:28 PM
Man I could be the richest man on earth and I still wouldn't pay for those shoes. They just cover your feet. That's all they do. Something that does that isn't worth over a grand.

Davian93
08-26-2009, 02:34 PM
Man I could be the richest man on earth and I still wouldn't pay for those shoes. They just cover your feet. That's all they do. Something that does that isn't worth over a grand.

They're really comfy...almost more comfy than the Vibrams.

EDIT: I tried them on the last time I was at a NeimannMarcus...I really want them.

Sinistrum
08-26-2009, 02:37 PM
Yeah so are Adidas Sambas and they cost about $1480 less.

Terez
08-26-2009, 02:42 PM
I agree...I have to wonder about the sanity of someone who would pay that much for shoes, no matter how rich they are.

And yeah, rich people should be taxed more because they make more. Why? Because being rich doesn't mean you work any harder than a person making minimum wage. More likely to be the opposite. It might mean that you're smarter, but stupid people can't help being stupid....

JSUCamel
08-26-2009, 02:44 PM
And yeah, rich people should be taxed more because they make more. Why? Because being rich doesn't mean you work any harder than a person making minimum wage. More likely to be the opposite. It might mean that you're smarter, but stupid people can't help being stupid....

Being rich doesn't mean you sit on your ass all day and do nothing. Being poor doesn't mean you work your ass off. It's faulty logic and, quite frankly, isn't a fair reason.

Sinistrum
08-26-2009, 02:56 PM
It might mean that you're smarter, but stupid people can't help being stupid....

So because someone is dumber than I am and therefore makes poor life choices, I'm obligated to throw them on my shoulders and carry their ass through life? I don't think so.

Sei'taer
08-26-2009, 04:02 PM
Here's what a $250 pair of boots looks like after 2 years of hell. Yup, their on my feet even as I type this.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i187/seitaer9/IMG_0122.jpg


Notice the black soles. Thats a tell tale sign among rednecks of a damn fine pair of boots. The scrapes and rubs and scratches mean a lot too.

JSUCamel
08-26-2009, 04:10 PM
Here's what a $250 pair of boots looks like after 2 years of hell.

Boots are a completely different matter, imho, especially the steel-toed kind. If you use them often and in certain conditions, they can be priceless. They're built to be sturdy and to be used in rough conditions, and perhaps more importantly, to protect your feet. Loafers or tennis shoes? Totally not worth it. I've spent $150 on a pair of tennis shoes before and they wore out just as fast as a $20 pair.

Sei'taer
08-26-2009, 04:17 PM
Boots are a completely different matter, imho, especially the steel-toed kind. If you use them often and in certain conditions, they can be priceless. They're built to be sturdy and to be used in rough conditions, and perhaps more importantly, to protect your feet. Loafers or tennis shoes? Totally not worth it. I've spent $150 on a pair of tennis shoes before and they wore out just as fast as a $20 pair.


Oh, I agree totally. I have a pair of $30 new balance and some dress shoes (black) that came from payless as a BOGO deal when I bought my son some shoes about 8 years ago. I can't imagine spending $1500 on something and then not using them because I was afraid I would scuff them or discolor the sole or something.

(PS, these aren't steel toes, but don't report that to work. I'd rather take my chances than have to wear steel toes again.)

Gilshalos Sedai
08-26-2009, 04:19 PM
I beg to differ. My $120 Nike Shox allow me to run where a lesser pair wouldn't let me even walk.


~grumbles about jackholes who don't think they need to stop for red lights and wanders off~

Sei'taer
08-26-2009, 04:24 PM
I wonder what happens when the upper on the boot wears out before the sole does? Maybe I can get them rebuilt? Elephant skin....that'd be nice...oh, I know, whale skin, yeah, it looks comfy and durable...oh I am so gonna do that! Or wait, maybe Brita can ship me some seal skin...Yeah, I'll have to ask her that. She prolly even has some tanned and laying around the house. Maybe piled up with the moose and bear skins.

Kurtz
08-26-2009, 04:27 PM
If you ask nicely i'm sure she'd be happy to go out and club some young seal pups to death so the skin would still be nice and supple.

Sei'taer
08-26-2009, 04:29 PM
If you ask nicely i'm sure she'd be happy to go out and club some young seal pups to death so the skin would still be nice and supple.

Even better...maybe leave the fur on so in the winter they'll be toasty warm? Actually, she probably uses that for mukluks in the winter. I wouldn't want to take those away from her.

Dragon Thief
08-26-2009, 05:26 PM
http://ferragamo.neimanmarcus.com/store/catalog/prod.jhtml?itemId=prod6420003&parentId=cat127&masterId=cat125&cmCat=cat000000cat102cat125cat127&index=5&tid=C9

They don't let you fly but I'd still drop $500 on them if I had the spare cash.

Dav', you're officially a chick. No backsies.

Sei'taer
08-26-2009, 05:43 PM
My wife read this and pointed out that I do have a pair of soccer boots. I guess that counts as an expensive useless shoe. They cost about $90.

Sei'taer
08-26-2009, 05:44 PM
Dav', you're officially a chick. No backsies.

He keeps fitting that little ditty I wrote about him better and better.

Terez
08-26-2009, 05:49 PM
Being rich doesn't mean you sit on your ass all day and do nothing. Being poor doesn't mean you work your ass off. It's faulty logic and, quite frankly, isn't a fair reason.
It would be faulty logic if I had claimed any such thing. But that was just a straw man. By your own logic, your assertion that it is unfair to tax the rich more is faulty logic.

Davian93
08-26-2009, 06:22 PM
He keeps fitting that little ditty I wrote about him better and better.

What? They're nice comfortable loafers.

Dragon Thief
08-26-2009, 06:26 PM
What? They're nice comfortable loafers.

I don't care how comfy they are, for that kind of price they ought to be making you nightly grilled cheeses.


BTW - is anyone else noticing that Dav is becoming more and more female-ish in a thread about a black guy who became a white chick? Karma? Dogma? I dunno!

Sinistrum
08-26-2009, 06:46 PM
Or perhaps a Foretelling?

jason wolfbrother
08-26-2009, 07:54 PM
Either way it's just dang scary. ;) :p

Ishara
08-27-2009, 07:27 AM
Whatever guys. They're beautiful loafers, and I won't lie when I say that a well-dressed man wearing clothes that fit him nicely with an ounce of pride in how he looks is DAMN attractive and far more likely to score in my eyes than a guy who doesn't think twice about buying shitty quality and shitty looking shoes at Payless when he has an alternative.

And for the record, I'm not talking blue-collar here. That is also DAMN sexy. I'm talking cheap and indifferent, which is definitely not.

Dav: Get them.

ETA: Also, boys? Those sassy red shoes? Are the kind that you keep on if you catch my drift. ;)

yks 6nnetu hing
08-27-2009, 07:34 AM
Also, boys? Those sassy red shoes? Are the kind that you keep on if you catch my drift. ;)
it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye:rolleyes:

Sei'taer
08-27-2009, 08:18 AM
a guy who doesn't think twice about buying shitty quality and shitty looking shoes at Payless when he has an alternative.

And for the record, I'm not talking blue-collar here. That is also DAMN sexy. I'm talking cheap and indifferent, which is definitely not.

Dav: Get them.

ETA: Also, boys? Those sassy red shoes? Are the kind that you keep on if you catch my drift. ;)

Hey! In 8 years I've worn those shoes 3 times. I wear my boots every day and they are definitely not shitty quality. I also buy good soccer boots because you can't play soccer in crap. My problem is that I wear a 10 1/2 DDDD, so finding shoes that fit is close to impossible unless I get really lucky. Work boots like those in the picture are easier to find and New Balance is the only tennis shoe I can find that fits (Nike, Asics, all that shit is for men who have skinny girlie feet).

And for the record, I'm not talking blue-collar here. That is also DAMN sexy. I'm talking cheap and indifferent, which is definitely not.

Oh...I missed this part! WOOOOHOOOO, I'm back to the TOP OF THE LIST, BOYS!

Davian93
08-27-2009, 08:27 AM
ETA: Also, boys? Those sassy red shoes? Are the kind that you keep on if you catch my drift.

A gentleman never tells but I would not disagree with this statement.



On another note, my hope is that the loafers will be a birthday present.

Zanguini
08-27-2009, 08:37 AM
http://www.paulbolstad.net/images/galleries/more%20fun%20pics/images/lazy%20cat.jpg

Loafers?

yks 6nnetu hing
08-27-2009, 09:09 AM
On another note, my hope is that the loafers will be a birthday present.
and then you'll both be wearing your respective shoes and nothing but?

Ishara
08-27-2009, 09:28 AM
and then you'll both be wearing your respective shoes and nothing but?
ROFLMAO (also, gymnastic contortions are best left to the bare feeted)

The mental picture is quite something let me tell you!

And Sei, that's what I mean about choice. Good qulaity, nice looking things just look better and they make you feel better. I don't care if that makes me look shallow and petty. I think it's true. That's not criticizing those who have no choice by the way. If Payless is all you can afford, fine. But if you can, you should invest. It's just about appearance. Gil alluded to it earlier, but better quality (and more expensive) is often better for you as well. Like you said, can't play soccer in crap. It hurts. My shoes are never cheaper than $100 - ever. And that's because I like to be able to walk in them, and walk after I've taken them off, which is often impossible with the cheaper options.

It boils down to taking pride in oneself. Like it or not, people - from dates to prospective employers - infer from your appearance.

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2009, 09:32 AM
Like it or not, people - from dates to prospective employers - infer from your appearance.Isn't that why blind dates were invented?

Davian93
08-27-2009, 09:54 AM
To follow Ishara's point. I've almost always been the youngest person in my office (or at least at my level at my office) and I look young too. I'm 27 (going on 28 in a few weeks) and I could probably pass for 23-24. Because of that, I have to deal with sometimes much older people on a constant basis. A good amount of the time, I am above them. Thus, presenting a professional appearance is far more important for me than for others. As a result, I tend to dress nicer than I have to at the office. The old saying is you should dress for the job you want, not the job you have. This is very true. I present a professional appearance so people assume I'm very professional...even if I'm posting on TL while at work. An older guy could probably get away with a golf shirt and chinos every day in a business casual environment whereas I have to wear slacks and a button up shirt to be taken seriously. Good shoes and a good MATCHING belt go a long way in helping one's appearance.

Sei'taer
08-27-2009, 10:02 AM
ROFLMAO (also, gymnastic contortions are best left to the bare feeted)

The mental picture is quite something let me tell you!

And Sei, that's what I mean about choice. Good qulaity, nice looking things just look better and they make you feel better. I don't care if that makes me look shallow and petty. I think it's true. That's not criticizing those who have no choice by the way. If Payless is all you can afford, fine. But if you can, you should invest. It's just about appearance. Gil alluded to it earlier, but better quality (and more expensive) is often better for you as well. Like you said, can't play soccer in crap. It hurts. My shoes are never cheaper than $100 - ever. And that's because I like to be able to walk in them, and walk after I've taken them off, which is often impossible with the cheaper options.

It boils down to taking pride in oneself. Like it or not, people - from dates to prospective employers - infer from your appearance.

I'm just not a showy person. I buy what I buy and go with it. I could go out this afternoon and buy those ferragamo shoes and not think twice about the price. The problem is that they would go in the closet and sit there. They're useless to me. It would take me 20 yrs to get my money out of them. I wear blue jeans and tshirts. I have a pair of black tailored dress pants, a pair of khaki tailored dredd pants and two white button down shirts, and I spent entirely too much money on those four articles of clothing because I wear them once or twice a year. I spent $600 on all of it and it's useless as far as I'm concerned. I can't do anything in them but look pretty and I'm not all that concerned with looking pretty. But thats fine, at least I'll get compliments when I'm laying in the pine box.

To me, its the same as buying a Lambo to haul mulch around, it looks pretty but there are other things that will do the same job better and a heck of a lot cheaper.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 10:10 AM
That's the difference Taer. I need to dress like this for my work and you don't. I likely wouldn't own as much if I had a different job or career field. Just like I don't have high end work boots. The only boots I own are my old army boots (all 5-6 pairs of them) and I use those to get by with. I hike so I have good hiking shoes, I paddle so I have good boating shoes, etc). Its a matter of use. Neither way is wrong and both are suited to our personal lifestyles and needs.

I would likely wear those loafers at least 1-2 times a week if I owned them. I have a great pair of ECCO dress shoes that were pretty pricey but I wear them all the time. They're my primary brown dress shoes. They were pretty expensive but they are ridiculously comfortable (something I can't say for a lot of cheaper dress shoes that dont have the support and/or aren't as good a quality of sole and leather.) Its like buying a high-end Land Rover. If you never off-road, why buy it...if you go on safari, you might want one.

Sei'taer
08-27-2009, 10:15 AM
Ok...well...uh...My wife just called to inform me that those dress shoes were bought by her 4 years ago and they are Santoni's. When she told me what she paid for them I about croaked. No wonder they hurt my feet. Anyway, that shows how much I care that I didn't even notice they were different. Also explains why she got pissed off when I was playing basketball in them after her cousin got married a few weeks ago...

Davian93
08-27-2009, 10:17 AM
Ok...well...uh...My wife just called to inform me that those dress shoes were bought by her 4 years ago and they are Santoni's. When she told me what she paid for them I about croaked. No wonder they hurt my feet. Anyway, that shows how much I care that I didn't even notice they were different. Also explains why she got pissed off when I was playing basketball in them after her cousin got married a few weeks ago...

LOL

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 10:39 AM
I buy cheap shoes for work. I buy expensive work out shoes.

The difference being, the work out shoes get a lot more mileage, so I own two and rotate them. The work shoes spend most of their time under the desk while I sit at a computer working on reports. Also, some dress shoes, you can't wear socks with, which is why they don't last very long for me. I'd really rather not render a pair a Laboutin's unusuable in a week.

But I have a closet full of shoes that hurt. Maybe because I buy them cheap, or maybe because my feet are so oddly shaped, it takes a lot of trial and error to find some that don't hurt, and most don't hurt right away, which is how they make it home to my closet in the first place. (They're literally triangles, which is why Nikes work.)

If you can buy and wear expensive shoes, more power to you. I'll never be "well-heeled," no matter how wealthy I become. As much of a shoe addict as I am, I'm going to stick with the knock-offs. I don't have a use for the stratospericly priced ones, and I don't think they're a good investment for me.

The most expensive pair of shoes I own, I got on sale two pair for $20, they were regularly $70 a pair (Jessica Simpson). They still gave me blisters. Price ain't everything, it doesn't always indicate that they'll be comfortable over a 14 hour day.

Ishara
08-27-2009, 10:59 AM
Exactly Dav. I'm not advocating buying $500 loafers if you're never going to wear them. Spend $300 on a great pair of work boots instead. Work clothes isn't as tricky. So fine, you're hauling dirt around all day. No one says you have to wear clothes that is stained with something other than said dirt, or with holes or rips in it. You can be a labourer and presentable at the same time.

And it's not just about the cost either. Jessica Simpson makes shit shoes. Expensive and shitty shoes. Money doesn't always indicate qulaity it sometimes just indicates a lack of common sense (not applying it to you in this case Gil).

Quality is KEY. I wear my heels at work and at play on weekends, and they are all leather, top and bottom. They all have good structure and support and not one of them gave me blisters, even the first time I wore them and I have soft feet (prone to blisters). It's because they are good quality from a reputable name. Like your Nikes.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 11:01 AM
And it's not just about the cost either. Jessica Simpson makes shit shoes. Expensive and shitty shoes. Money doesn't always indicate qulaity it sometimes just indicates a lack of common sense (not applying it to you in this case Gil).

I don't even think she's a certified cobbler...

Ishara
08-27-2009, 11:05 AM
LOL. Poor Jessica Simpson.:rolleyes:

Gilshalos Sedai
08-27-2009, 11:23 AM
Well, they were comfortable for the most part. Just a couple places rubbed me wrong, which is less than most shoes. Most of my shoes are Target or Payless.

Birgitte
08-27-2009, 01:41 PM
I don't like to wear shoes.

Sinistrum
08-27-2009, 01:49 PM
They're beautiful loafers, and I won't lie when I say that a well-dressed man wearing clothes that fit him nicely with an ounce of pride in how he looks is DAMN attractive and far more likely to score in my eyes than a guy who doesn't think twice about buying shitty quality and shitty looking shoes at Payless when he has an alternative.

Ok, so why is this? I happen to think there is nothing wrong with not caring about fashion. Its just clothing and I find the obsession our culture has with it be crass and infantile. Its no more sophisticated or important than a peacock flashing its plums. Style and Fashion are just another way of people saying "look me! aren't I so cool?!"

Or perhaps some people are drawing certain inferences about clothing, like say the amount of money one makes? ;) If that's the case, I think I'll pass on the girls who are turned on by guys who only wear $1,500 loafers and the like. I'd much rather have someone be interested in me, and not my bank account and the things that I can buy that reflect its balance.

ETA: Also, boys? Those sassy red shoes? Are the kind that you keep on if you catch my drift.

That's ok, I don't like women wearing shoes in bed anyways. They tend to make taking off the more important stuff more complicated.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 01:55 PM
Sini, the loafers are only $495, not $1500.

That's ok, I don't like women wearing shoes in bed anyways. They tend to make taking off the more important stuff more complicated.

If she's leaving the shoes on, then the thigh high stockings likely stay and there should be no issues with anything else.

Sinistrum
08-27-2009, 02:06 PM
Sini, the loafers are only $495, not $1500.

So? IMHO that still makes them ridiculously overpriced. I could probably find shoes like them that are just as comfortable at 1/4 that price at Payless. The point I'm making is you're paying that additional $375 simply for the label attached to it. The only possible logical explanation for buying a $495 pair of shoes when you can get just as good for a lot less is to show off the fact that you can afford to buy them and the name brand that goes along with it. Fashion is all about flaunting wealth, pure and simple.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 02:09 PM
So? IMHO that still makes them ridiculously overpriced. I could probably find shoes like them that are just as comfortable at 1/4 that price at Payless. The point I'm making is your paying that additional $375 simply for the label attached to it. The only possible logical explanation for buying a $495 pair of shoes when you can get just as good for a lot less is to show off the fact that you can afford to buy them and the name brand that goes along with it. Fashion is all about flaunting wealth, pure and simple.

You might want to try them before you say that. You WILL NOT find a pair as comfy and that doesn't fall apart for 1/4 the price at payless. And its not as if they're emblazoned with their designer logo on the outside...they're plain loafers.

Sarevok
08-27-2009, 02:14 PM
You might want to try them before you say that. You WILL NOT find a pair as comfy and that doesn't fall apart for 1/4 the price at payless. And its not as if they're emblazoned with their designer logo on the outside...they're plain loafers.
Reading through all this, it seems to me shoes are a lot more expensive in the USA?
I'd have a hard time finding bad shoes for 100,- :confused:

Sei'taer
08-27-2009, 02:16 PM
You might want to try them before you say that. You WILL NOT find a pair as comfy and that doesn't fall apart for 1/4 the price at payless. And its not as if they're emblazoned with their designer logo on the outside...they're plain loafers.

Do you put a penny in 'em?

Sei'taer
08-27-2009, 02:20 PM
Reading through all this, it seems to me shoes are a lot more expensive in the USA?
I'd have a hard time finding bad shoes for EUR100,- :confused:

I've been wondering how much wooden shoes cost. I guess you pay more cuz someone has to cut the wood and then carve it and then paint it....

Ishara
08-27-2009, 02:32 PM
The point I'm making is you're paying that additional $375 simply for the label attached to it.
The only possible logical explanation for buying a $495 pair of shoes when you can get just as good for a lot less is to show off the fact that you can afford to buy them and the name brand that goes along with it. Fashion is all about flaunting wealth, pure and simple.

Dude, you've missed the point completely, so I guess I can't blame you for having this opinion.

I never once said that it's about the money or fashion. It's about taking pride in your appearance. Honestly, I know I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a $300 pair or a $1500 pair. It's so not about that. But wanting to look put together is only a GOOD thing. Honestly, who would you hire? The young lawyer who took the time to wear a nice suit and tie or the lawyer who wears slacks and a golf-shirt? Well, propsective employers like to envision their new hires actually doing the job. Who do you see meeting clients, prepping witnesses, talking to a Justice?

It's not about ostentatious displays of wealth. It's about looking the part. Like Dav said, you dress for the job you want. What's wrong with that?

Davian93
08-27-2009, 02:44 PM
I remember going into a lawyer's office one time and he was wearing all sweats because "Hey, its Friday".

I turned around and walked out. Sorry, but I don't give a damn if its Friday, dont wear sweats to work if you're a lawyer.

Sei'taer
08-27-2009, 02:58 PM
I remember going into a lawyer's office one time and he was wearing all sweats because "Hey, its Friday".

I turned around and walked out. Sorry, but I don't give a damn if its Friday, dont wear sweats to work if you're a lawyer.

As long as wasn't wearing flipflops it wouldn't bother me. My doctor wears blue jeans and a polo.

I refuse to wear a tie. If you make me wear a tie I am suing you for torture. It's crude, nasty, looks like ass and I ain't wearing it and we'll get along much better if you don't wear one. I don't trust anyone who is comfortable in a tie...because a tie is made to be uncomfortable, so if you're comfortable there is something wrong with you.

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 02:58 PM
It's not about ostentatious displays of wealth. It's about looking the part. Like Dav said, you dress for the job you want. What's wrong with that?

Sini's point isn't that you shouldn't look nice. His point is that $300 for a pair of shoes is ridiculous, especially when you can get equally good looking shoes for $90 at Payless. The only reason you're paying $300 for that particular pair of shoes is because of the brand name, not because of the way it looks.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 03:00 PM
Sini's point isn't that you shouldn't look nice. His point is that $300 for a pair of shoes is ridiculous, especially when you can get equally good looking shoes for $90 at Payless. The only reason you're paying $300 for that particular pair of shoes is because of the brand name, not because of the way it looks.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Most people can't tell the difference but some can and they are usually the ones that matter anyway.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-27-2009, 03:00 PM
and the thing about quality *for me* is that it fits. When the clothes fit, when the shoes fit, then they are easyer to move in, they make you look nicer because a) you feel more comfortable and b)when you feel more comfortable you feel more self-assured, hence more attractive.

You know, a fisherman's jacket with just as many pockets exactly where you need them and sturdy too... Or your favourite pair of jeans... Or a tailor-made suit that makes the most of your colouring and build while hiding the flaws. Or the high-end power drill with all the gadgets and thingamadoodles (Dai has a thing for those, don't ask me why) No need to go pricey for something that is hideously expensive and makes you look hideous but there's also no need to buy something just because it's cheap (don't get me wrong, I love H&M's and the like).

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 03:05 PM
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Most people can't tell the difference but some can and they are usually the ones that matter anyway.

No, there isn't a difference, just like there isn't a difference between generic acetominophen and Tylenol. It's just branding and a label.

And quite frankly, anyone who is going to judge me about whether I paid $500 for my pair of shoes or $90 is someone that I'm not interested in.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 03:07 PM
No, there isn't a difference, just like there isn't a difference between generic acetominophen and Tylenol. It's just branding and a label.

And quite frankly, anyone who is going to judge me about whether I paid $500 for my pair of shoes or $90 is someone that I'm not interested in.

Actually there is...the tylenol comparison isn't accurate.

Its like saying there's no diffence between a Kia and an Lexus because both are cars...its completely innacurate.

And the person that would notice is likely someone who is above you in the corporate food chain. The goal in our multi-classed society is to increase ones standing. To do that, you need to stick out from the rest of the Plebes. Working hard is part of it but you still need to look the part.

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 03:12 PM
Its like saying there's no diffence between a Kia and an Lexus because both are cars...its completely innacurate.

This is a flawed comparison on a variety of levels, not the least of which you're trusting your life with the quality of your car, whereas a shoe just looks good on you. Second, when you buy a car, you're making that decision based on a variety of factors: car mileage, safety rating, recommendations from friends, features inside such as GPS, leather seats, etc. When you buy shoes, you're buying them because they look nice, they're comfortable. Brand name shouldn't even enter into the equation. Third, you're spending 10 or 20 times on a car what you would spend on a pair of shoes.

I've bought Nikes and I've bought fancy schmancy $200 tennis shoes that are supposed to be more comfortable and more durable, and they're simply not. They're not more comfortable, they're not more durable, and they don't look any better than normal.

If you have the money to spare, then go right on ahead, but don't get upset when I laugh at you when you say you can't afford to pay for something else.

Ishara
08-27-2009, 03:17 PM
If you have the money to spare, then go right on ahead, but don't get upset when I laugh at you when you say you can't afford to pay for something else.
Why go there Camel? First off, no one is saying that it has anything to do with money. It's to do with QUALITY. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat it. If youcan't afford to buy great qulaity, of course good quality will do just fine. No one is advocating not eating to afford nice shoes.

Put it another way:

You have two pairs of shoes in front of you. Both are dress shoes. Both are black. If one is far more comfortable and nicer looking than the other - which would you want?

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 03:19 PM
You have two pairs of shoes in front of you. Both are dress shoes. Both are black. If one is far more comfortable and nicer looking than the other - which would you want?

I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that the quality difference between a $100 pair of shoes and a $500 pair of shoes isn't enough to justify the $400 price difference.

Why go there Camel?

I have no sympathy for anyone who bitches that their fiancee can't afford her medicine and then turns around and buys $500 pair of shoes when a $100 pair would do just fine.

Birgitte
08-27-2009, 03:22 PM
Camel... His point was that they're comfortable, as opposed to payless shoes that hurt like a bitch if you walk around in them for any length of time. His feet can tell the difference between $20 shoes and $500 shoes. Honestly, I think we should just pity him. And go spend $400 on something cool.

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 03:25 PM
His feet can tell the difference between $20 shoes and $500 shoes. Honestly, I think we should just pity him. And go spend $400 on something cool.

I have no sympathy for pansies. But you make a good point.

Birgitte
08-27-2009, 03:30 PM
I don't think it's a "pansies" thing. Some people's feet are weird. Some people have weird back issues. There just gets to be a point where you can't power through it and trying is just going to mess your body up. At that point, it's $500 shoes or who knows how much in medical bills when you're 80.

Brita
08-27-2009, 03:31 PM
His feet can tell the difference between $20 shoes and $500 shoes. Honestly, I think we should just pity him. And go spend $400 on something cool.

LOL! Well for some, fancy shoes are cool. Not to me, but I just spent $400 on an autoharp. So who's to judge? Can't imagine that would be on the top of anyone's priority list here, but who cares?

I would rather learn a musical intrument and sing, than look fancy and move up the corporate ladder- so I spend my money to achieve my goals.

We all have our priorities, and *gasp* we're not all the same! It's not right or wrong, just different.

Ishara
08-27-2009, 03:38 PM
You're right Brita, and for you to a degree, you can go to work in scrubs, which so long as they're clean...well, it's a uniform. For those of us who don't have that burden/ luxury, it's more inportant.

Seriously Camel, there's no need to resort to below the belt personal attacks on someone who has a different opinion than you. Dragging in material from another thread that has less than nothing to do with this one? Now who's in high school?

Birgitte
08-27-2009, 03:39 PM
LOL! Lies, Brita! Lies and Trickery!

Autoharps are cool for everyone.

Sinistrum
08-27-2009, 03:46 PM
I had this debate with B on AIM, but I'll ask some of the questions I asked her here. Ask yourself the following: What makes one person look good and one person not? What assumptions do you make about someone who looks good and wears "quality clothes" when it comes to where those clothes came from?

GonzoTheGreat
08-27-2009, 04:17 PM
What makes one person look good and one person not?Ehr, is that a serious question?

Just imagine Dick Cheney in a Princess Leia bikini, and tell me: does he look good?

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 04:19 PM
Seriously Camel, there's no need to resort to below the belt personal attacks on someone who has a different opinion than you. Dragging in material from another thread that has less than nothing to do with this one? Now who's in high school?

Nothing exists in a vacuum. You don't start over tabula rasa for each individual thread. What you say in one thread gets incorporated into who you are in my mind and carries over to another thread.

You can't bitch in one thread about not having enough money to do X and then in another thread talk about buying $500 shoes.

You can't bitch in one thread about how stupid someone is, claim you're "venting", then get pissed off and offended when someone vents about you venting.

I'm not being immature here. I'm making points that I think are logical and correct. Davian obviously has a hypocritical stance here: he wants someone else to pay for his medical care (the rich) because he would rather spend his money on shoes. I'm pointing it out, that's all. How is that hitting below the belt?

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 04:38 PM
It would be faulty logic if I had claimed any such thing. But that was just a straw man. By your own logic, your assertion that it is unfair to tax the rich more is faulty logic.

Let me quote you again:

Because being rich doesn't mean you work any harder than a person making minimum wage. More likely to be the opposite. It might mean that you're smarter, but stupid people can't help being stupid....

"More likely to mean the opposite". You suggested that being rich means you work less than someone who makes minimum wage (i.e. a poor person). It's hardly a straw man.

My argument is that it's unfair to raises taxes ONLY on the rich, simply because they're rich. You wanna raise taxes? Everyone chips in. Everyone's taxes go up. Progressively. But you don't single out a single tier and charge them more just because they have more.

When I have a project that I need help in, say, moving from one apartment to another, I call in my friends. Do I call in fifteen of my friends, then pick the two strongest and have them move everything, while the rest of is sit by and watch, simply because they're the strongest? No, of course not. You give the strongest people the heaviest, the not-quite-so-strong the medium and the weakest the lightest boxes. That's fair. It's not fair to make the strongest (in this analogy, the richest) do all of the work, simply because they're able to do it.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 04:41 PM
~edited by Davian for uncalled for attack on Camel that was way below the belt~

~Actually it was called for but its simply not worth continually a pissing battle with someone who thinks they are still in grade school...maybe I should go bitch about it in an IM to another TL Member and then complain HYPOCRITICALLY when two long-time members of the board do the same thing on the TAR Board...oops, did I let something slip there?~

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 04:42 PM
Let me first apologize. You said you would buy them if you could, not that you had already bought them. I apologize for that mistake; I misremembered the post.

However, my other points stand.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 04:45 PM
Let me first apologize. You said you would buy them if you could, not that you had already bought them. I apologize for that mistake; I misremembered the post.

However, my other points stand.

Fair enough. I apologize as well.

I buy nice stuff because I can afford it and I think the quality is better. I do it for the same reason I buy Kraft Mac and Cheese over Wal-Mart brand. Not because its more expensive but because I can tell a difference in the taste and I prefer the better (and unfortunately more expensive one).

Davian93
08-27-2009, 04:51 PM
You know the funny (and pathetic) thing here? I was actually SUPPORTING Camel in that healthcare debate...and yet he uses it to rip me when I say I want nice stuff.

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 04:59 PM
You know the funny (and pathetic) thing here? I was actually SUPPORTING Camel in that healthcare debate...and yet he uses it to rip me when I say I want nice stuff.

It's one thing to want a universal health care option because you need a little help.

It's quite another thing to say that since THEY have more money, THEY should pay for it so YOU don't have to. Which is what a tax only on the upper 1% is. I know that if I were a millionaire, I wouldn't want my taxes raised while everyone else's taxes stayed the same or lowered. I earned that money (or my parents earned it, whatever). Fact is that it's my money -- not yours. And you shouldn't get it just because you have less than I do.

Your argument that the rich should get a tax increase because "they can afford it" is weak at best. The only reason it's a popular belief is because it allows revenue to go up without YOU contributing. Still not fair to those who have money.

You would be furious if they raised taxes only on your tax bracket, wouldn't you? Yes. Of course you would. Just because they have money doesn't mean they're obligated to give it up because someone else doesn't.

Whether or not this tax money would be used to fund public health care is irrelevant. It's not right to single out a specific group of people and punish them.

The means do not justify the ends.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 05:01 PM
We already had that debate...We disagree. Way to ignore the rest. Though you probably did because you know you are wrong and you know your attack was completely uncalled for...not that that's ever stopped you before.

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 05:05 PM
We already had that debate...We disagree. Way to ignore the rest. Though you probably did because you know you are wrong and you know your attack was completely uncalled for...not that that's ever stopped you before.

What? Why would I be making these arguments if I thought I was wrong? I'm not playing devil's advocate here. I honestly believe that taking from the rich simply because they're rich is unfair. It's unfair to force one group of people to do all the heavy lifting while the rest of the people sit on the sidelines and reap the benefits.

How is that possibly fair?

Davian93
08-27-2009, 05:07 PM
Then pay for your own healthcare and NEVER bring it up again. Stop bitching about your Cobra bill, Stop bitching about your surgery bill, your transplant bill, etc etc etc.

Till then shut up.

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 05:28 PM
Then pay for your own healthcare and NEVER bring it up again. Stop bitching about your Cobra bill, Stop bitching about your surgery bill, your transplant bill, etc etc etc.

Till then shut up.

I don't need to shut up. My point is perfectly valid. Public health care is viable without singling out one tax tier. It's even more viable if everyone chips in. Gonna raise taxes? Raise it on everyone. Top tier goes up 5%, upper-middle class goes up 2%, lower-middle class goes up 1% or .75%. That's more fair.

But your solution is just plain discrimination based on wealth.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 05:30 PM
I think everyone should pay for their own healthcare...if they can't afford it, oh well.

That's much better than your "tax everyone equally" plan. Though you are such a fucking idiot you think a flat across the board tax is equal.

Sucks if you can't afford it or don't have a job I guess.

tworiverswoman
08-27-2009, 05:33 PM
Wow. Talk about hi-jacked...

On the subject of shoes, I'm in Camel and Sini's corner - I can't IMAGINE spending big bucks on shoes. Or clothes, for that matter. I think the current generation of school kids wearing $200-$400 clothes because they've guilt-tripped their folks into buying it for them is a real problem - both now and in the near future when they have to learn to do without.

Sorry - starting a brand-new hijack there...

However, much as I might be taken aback by the idea, what people do with their own money is mostly their own business. It only becomes my business if certain other things occur.

I suddenly realized, when reading Camel and Dav's posts up above, that there IS a certain amount of irony in wanting a universal health care program paid for by taxes vs. complaining about taking money from people "just because they can afford it." Reduced to basics, that's what socialized medicine is -- health care paid by others "because they can afford it" (i.e., taxes instead of your personal pocketbook).

JSUCamel
08-27-2009, 05:34 PM
I think everyone should pay for their own healthcare...if they can't afford it, oh well.

That's much better than your "tax everyone equally" plan. Though you are such a fucking idiot you think a flat across the board tax is equal.

Sucks if you can't afford it or don't have a job I guess.

Now you're being obtuse. I never said a flat across-the-board tax is equal, nor did I propose one.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 05:48 PM
Now you're being obtuse. I never said a flat across-the-board tax is equal, nor did I propose one.

You still refuse to acknowledge that your attacks on me and my fiancee were completely uncalled for.

Basically you are a giant pussy. Considering this isn't the first time you've attacked me, I'm not really surprised by it but I thought you were better than that.

Or perhaps you dont think that things you've said over the years to other TL'ers about me and my posts didn't make it back to me you fucking hypocrite?

StrangePackage
08-27-2009, 05:52 PM
Girls! Girls!

You're both pretty.

Now play nice.

Davian93
08-27-2009, 05:56 PM
Girls! Girls!

You're both pretty.

Now play nice.

I tried to. I deleted my initial response to him and I even PMed to try and stop this. I also started a thread on the TAR board to figure it out. Camel wants to be a bitch and none of us can stop him from doing that.

StrangePackage
08-27-2009, 05:58 PM
I tried to. I deleted my initial response to him and I even PMed to try and stop this. I also started a thread on the TAR board to figure it out. Camel wants to be a bitch and none of us can stop him from doing that.

Then why are you trying so hard?

Davian93
08-27-2009, 05:59 PM
Then why are you trying so hard?

Because his personal attack was completely uncalled for and it wasn't the first time he's singled me out like that for no reason. Its getting real old at this point.

Brita
08-27-2009, 06:21 PM
You're right Brita, and for you to a degree, you can go to work in scrubs, which so long as they're clean...well, it's a uniform. For those of us who don't have that burden/ luxury, it's more inportant.

Actually, I work in an office and do wear office clothes. I am definitely not the most well tailored girl in the place, but luckily my stunning good looks make up for that, so in a way I don't have to worry as much...:p

Davian93
08-27-2009, 06:22 PM
Actually, I work in an office and do wear office clothes. I am definitely not the most well tailored girl in the place, but luckily my stunning good looks make up for that, so in a way I don't have to worry as much...:p

Very true.;) I don't have that going for me and thus have to compensate.

Sei'taer
08-27-2009, 06:57 PM
That's much better than your "tax everyone equally" plan. Though you are such a fucking idiot you think a flat across the board tax is equal.



Actually, I think I was that fucking idiot. Camel was for the fair tax (national sales tax thingy).

It all depends on how you view money and how you view taxes. I consider taxes to be a bad thing and too high already, other people don't.

Ask Sare why he can't even buy crappy shoes for less than EUR100. (hint: taxes)

Ishara
08-27-2009, 08:43 PM
Reduced to basics, that's what socialized medicine is -- health care paid by others "because they can afford it" (i.e., taxes instead of your personal pocketbook).

Actually no. Reduced to basics, socialized medicine is paid for by others because it's the right fucking thing to do. It's an ideological difference. That ideology has a cost, which happens to be that it's paid for taxes. But the difference is fundamental to those who have it.

And Dav - let's gossip elsewhere. :rolleyes:

Matoyak
08-27-2009, 11:26 PM
Wow Ishara, that's a pretty vehement response to Tru there...Don't think she's ever even commented on the issue before. Why the vitriol?

On the topic of shoes, I wear an American size 14, and depending on the brand I will sometimes need wide-fit. (but that's because stuff like Nike and New Balance are really skinny shoes...my feet aren't wide at all, but they ARE flat-footed. No arch for me.) The "crappy" brands of shoes at like payless and such? IF I can find a SINGLE pair of shoes in the ENTIRE STORE that fit, they WILL cost at least 100 bucks.

Actually, I tend to go to Academy. They are the cheapest, most comfortable shoes I can find. I tend to find shoes above 100 bucks to be uncomfortable as HELL. That is mostly due to my lack of an arch, as most higher-priced shoes have massive arches that like, try to freakin' restructure my entire foot every time I step down.

My newest pair was the only pair of cross-trainers that my Academy here in Arlington had in stock in my size, and they were on sale for 60 bucks. :D I was super happy. They are the most comfortable shoes I have ever had, and this includes being forced to buy 150-200 dollar shoes due to my ridiculously large feet. (I have MET only two people with feet larger than mine, and they both had that "Giants Gene" or whatever. They were both over a foot and a half taller than I (I'm 6'0" or 6'1", somewhere in there))

Terez
08-28-2009, 12:03 AM
"More likely to mean the opposite". You suggested that being rich means you work less than someone who makes minimum wage (i.e. a poor person). It's hardly a straw man.
No, it's a straw man, because 'more likely' does not equal what you said. What you said (and I'm too lazy to quote you) is 'just because...", which is exactly what I said. Which means that we agree on that point, and you don't seem to realize it. The only difference between the way I phrased it and the way you phrased it was something along the lines of glass half full/empty.

The notion that placing the brunt of the tax burden on those who can afford to pay it is somehow 'unfair' doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless you believe that somehow, rich people deserve to be rich more than poor people do. Or, if the taxing is so great as to kill the motivation for the rich to do what they do (which is sometimes actually beneficial to society). But it isn't - not anywhere close. We could raise taxes quite a bit from where they are now, and the middle class would still be noticeably better off than the poverty class, and the rich still noticeably better off than the middle class, etc.

When I have a project that I need help in, say, moving from one apartment to another, I call in my friends. Do I call in fifteen of my friends, then pick the two strongest and have them move everything, while the rest of us sit by and watch, simply because they're the strongest? No, of course not. You give the strongest people the heaviest, the not-quite-so-strong the medium and the weakest the lightest boxes. That's fair. It's not fair to make the strongest (in this analogy, the richest) do all of the work, simply because they're able to do it.
News for you: that's how it actually works. The rich are taxed more because they are the strongest - they're not doing all the work. Everyone pays taxes. Some people end up with a net refund, but in general these people are financially comparable to your friend in a wheelchair. You going to ask him to help you move?

Reminds me of something Obama said in one of his books...'Audacity' I think. Some rich dude (I think it was William F. Buckley) pointed out to Obama once that his secretary actually pays a higher percentage in taxes than he does, simply because the system is currently set up to give massive tax breaks to those who have enough money to invest.

JSUCamel
08-28-2009, 12:42 AM
which is exactly what I said. Which means that we agree on that point, and you don't seem to realize it.

Fine.


The notion that placing the brunt of the tax burden on those who can afford to pay it is somehow 'unfair' doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless you believe that somehow, rich people deserve to be rich more than poor people do.

They don't DESERVE to be rich. They ARE rich. They GOT to be rich somehow -- whether they earned it or inherited it. Who are we to say they can't have that?

News for you: that's how it actually works. The rich are taxed more because they are the strongest - they're not doing all the work. Everyone pays taxes. Some people end up with a net refund, but in general these people are financially comparable to your friend in a wheelchair. You going to ask him to help you move?

Yes, yes, yes. Again, we're agreeing but saying it differently. I'm not saying that the strongest shouldn't carry the heaviest burden, but what others, including Obama, have suggested that the taxes should ONLY be raised on the top 1%. Everyone else's taxes stay the same. To me, it's not fair to single out one tier for an increase and not ask everyone else to chip in a little extra as well. I'm not saying raise taxes on everyone, but when you raise taxes for the top 1%, it should cascade down.

i.e. If you raise taxes on top 1% by 15%, then top 5% should be raised by 8%, top 20% by 2%, etc.

(I had another analogy here, but nobody likes my analogies so I changed my mind).

Imagine if you were rich. Right now, your tax rate is 50% of every dollar over $250k. You're okay with that. It's a reasonable amount.

Now imagine they want to pass this health care plan (that you don't need), and they come to you and they say "We're raising your taxes to 65% of every dollar over $250k, but we're not gonna make anyone else in the country pay a single dime more than they're already paying."

Would you be okay with that? I would hope not. It's unfair.

However, if they were to say "We're raising your taxes to 65% of every dollar over 250k. The 100k-250k tax rate used to be 42%, but now we're gonna bump that up to 48%, and the 80k-100k used to be 40% and we're bumping that up to 43%."

That's much more reasonable for a variety of reasons, two obvious ones that come to mind are: A) You're not being singled out, B) you're helping others help themselves (as opposed to shouldering their burdens completely).

Anyway,... whatever. I'm tired of trying to make this point, so this is my last post on this, lol. I can talk about this in private chat or whatever if anyone cares to pursue this topic.

Terez
08-28-2009, 02:01 AM
Fine.



They don't DESERVE to be rich. They ARE rich. They GOT to be rich somehow -- whether they earned it or inherited it. Who are we to say they can't have that?
No one said they can't have it. They have to pay taxes, though. That's just a fact of life. I think I mentioned this recently (though it might have been elsewhere), but there are a lot of rich folks that recognize this (exit polls show that the wealthy tend to vote Democrat, for instance, and Hollywood also shows a heavy liberal tendency, and those guys are some of the richest in the country). They recognize that everyone benefits from a society where those who can afford it shoulder a good bit of the burden of those who cannot. After the taxes are paid, they're still a damn sight better off than those in the tax bracket below them, so no harm done.

Yes, yes, yes. Again, we're agreeing but saying it differently. I'm not saying that the strongest shouldn't carry the heaviest burden, but what others, including Obama, have suggested that the taxes should ONLY be raised on the top 1%.
Because they are the only ones that can afford it right now. Also, from what I understand, the top 1% were given a lot of breaks during the Bush administration that were just stupid, and those haven't been totally reversed yet.

Also, just because taxes are only being raised for the top 1% right now doesn't mean it will always be that way. It may be that somewhere down the road, Washington will actually accomplish something useful and, for instance, maybe they'll cut back on waste in the government. Then taxes might could be cut for everyone. Who knows?

But at the moment, we're suffering from a pretty bad recession, on the edge of depression. We can raise taxes on the rich without breaking them, but we can't raise them for anyone else.

Would you be okay with that? I would hope not. It's unfair.
Yeah, I would be okay with it. Lots of people in the top 1% are perfectly fine with it. Why? Because it's the ONLY fair solution at the moment.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-28-2009, 02:16 AM
Ask Sare why he can't even buy crappy shoes for less than EUR100. (hint: taxes)
um... no, it's the other way around here - it's hard to find good quality (expensive) shoes that cost MORE than 100 Euros. And don't even get me started on Dutch health care. it sucks, it's frickin' expensive and - "best" of all - private companies run it but everyone is consitutionally obliged to have a health insurance. If you don't, you get a fine... in the amount of the health insurance you haven't paid. Even if you're healthy as a horse and never even went to the apothecary to pick up vitamine C. The Estonian version is much better - everyone pays 3% of their salary directly to the national healthcare fund and then are entitled equally to all national health care. Under 18 or in Uni have free healthcare, same for new mothers and pensioners. If you quit/lose your work, the healthcare is valid for 3 months, after that tough luck.

OMG, Camel, chill! What's with the taking everything so seriously lately? I thought we were having some joking banter about shoes on this thread until you joined in...

Terez
08-28-2009, 02:20 AM
Under 18 or in Uni have free healthcare
That would be nice. Parents wouldn't have to shoulder for the kids (which kills a lot of families), and I would be covered. As it is, I'm a full time student but too old to be listed as a dependent on my parents' insurance.

JSUCamel
08-28-2009, 02:53 AM
OMG, Camel, chill! What's with the taking everything so seriously lately? I thought we were having some joking banter about shoes on this thread until you joined in...

You're right. You're absolutely right. I'm the bad guy here.

I don't get you guys, really. I can't win for losing. I cry out against insulting comments on one forum, but everyone's against me and thinks I'm wrong. So on this forum, I point out some hypocrisy, and someone takes it as a personal attack. Okay, fine, I'll attack. So I try it your way, and I get jumped again by everyone and their mother.

Fine. Have it your way.

I apologize for being too rude and I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-28-2009, 03:16 AM
it's just that you aren't usually like this at all... and now there's been a few blow-ups in a row with you in the centre of them and I just don't understand why everyone's in such a huff about it, most of all you. I know some of us here have a temper but YOU are usually such a chill, nice guy...

Terez
08-28-2009, 04:53 AM
He's not really. He just pretends to be most of the time. :p

GonzoTheGreat
08-28-2009, 05:16 AM
I think everyone should pay for their own healthcare...if they can't afford it, oh well.Right until you die of an infectious disease you wouldn't have contracted if the guy you caught it from had seen a doctor before he infected you.

But if you can avoid that, you wouldn't be at all bothered at seeing the poor chap's children die of an infected scratch from a rusty nail, because, after all, if they'd wanted treatment for that then they simply could have elected to have richer parents.

Sei'taer
08-28-2009, 06:47 AM
Right until you die of an infectious disease you wouldn't have contracted if the guy you caught it from had seen a doctor before he infected you.

But if you can avoid that, you wouldn't be at all bothered at seeing the poor chap's children die of an infected scratch from a rusty nail, because, after all, if they'd wanted treatment for that then they simply could have elected to have richer parents.

Amazing that no one in your country dies from stepping on a rusty nail or from having an infectious disease. I guess your gov't isn't putting out statistics on how many people are going to die from swine flu, since your stuff is so awesome no one ever dies. Why aern't we just adopting the dutch system? Thanks GtG, you've solved our problem!

yks 6nnetu hing
08-28-2009, 06:57 AM
cut it out both of you or take it to the healthcare thread!






marijuana found in Jackson's bedroom:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jackson28-2009aug28,0,1554430.story

Rotting marijuana that Michael Jackson's family members mistook for heroin briefly caused detectives to look for further evidence of the illegal drug in the pop star's rented residence during the frenzied 48 hours after his death, according to sources close to the investigation.

Family members told coroner's officials that they found "tar heroin" in the Holmby Hills home's master bedroom. Only Jackson and his children had access to the room, according to court records unsealed Thursday. The discovery prompted authorities to obtain a search warrant for Jackson's house for heroin, hypodermic needles, cutting agents, scales, balloons, condoms, razor blades, buyer lists, and seller lists, among other items, documents show.

But within days, police had ruled out heroin as a factor in the singer's death, sources close to the investigation said. Lab tests showed that the purported heroin was actually moldy marijuana, sources said.

Ishara
08-28-2009, 07:15 AM
How on earth do you confuse moldy pot with heroin? To start with aren't they two very diffeernt textures? And colours?

GonzoTheGreat
08-28-2009, 07:35 AM
If things get moldy enough, the texture can change. Besides, I wouldn't be too eager to have a very close look at a suspicious mound of mold found somewhere in MJ's appartment, so making a guess seems reasonable. Especially if it's a guess which makes the police do all the hard (and dirty) work.

Davian93
08-28-2009, 08:05 AM
Right until you die of an infectious disease you wouldn't have contracted if the guy you caught it from had seen a doctor before he infected you.

But if you can avoid that, you wouldn't be at all bothered at seeing the poor chap's children die of an infected scratch from a rusty nail, because, after all, if they'd wanted treatment for that then they simply could have elected to have richer parents.

I wasn't being serious Gonzo.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-28-2009, 08:21 AM
I wasn't being serious Gonzo.
what did I say?

*glares*

Zanguini
08-28-2009, 08:21 AM
still black tar heroin is a pretty specific label to stick onto something. They had to go in there expecting to find it or their vice guys need to go back to school. I am sure 2 can shed more light on this subject.

Sei'taer
08-28-2009, 08:37 AM
cut it out both of you or take it to the healthcare thread!

I ain't skeered.

Ishara
08-28-2009, 08:44 AM
I ain't skeered.

I would be! :p

And yesh, you put it that way Gonzo and I guess I'd be scared of the random mold as well. Maybe it was a nose?

Sei'taer
08-28-2009, 09:21 AM
Maybe it was a nose?

Naw, that'll be on ebay in a year or two for a million or so...might be more than that. I'm not sure what the going price is for celebrity prosthetics.

Brita
08-28-2009, 10:52 AM
And yesh, you put it that way Gonzo and I guess I'd be scared of the random mold as well. Maybe it was a nose?

Ewwwwwwwwwwww!

Terez
08-28-2009, 03:07 PM
yks, this is Theoryland. Hijacks are what we do. Had you forgotten? :p

Cary Sedai
08-28-2009, 04:41 PM
Now who would leave pot unsmoked long enough to grow mold? :p

Gilshalos Sedai
08-28-2009, 04:44 PM
From the looks of things, ol' Mikey had better stuff in his system.

Davian93
08-28-2009, 07:38 PM
what did I say?

*glares*

Yes Ma'am, sorry ma'am...

~ducks head~

Neilbert
08-28-2009, 08:43 PM
From the looks of things, ol' Mikey had better stuff in his system.

WTF is better than pot? :confused:

Davian93
08-28-2009, 09:35 PM
WTF is better than pot? :confused:

Probably means the powerful sedative that was IV'ed into him...though I doubt the "high" of having ones brain shut off is that great.

Ivhon
08-28-2009, 10:35 PM
Probably means the powerful sedative that was IV'ed into him...though I doubt the "high" of having ones brain shut off is that great.

Don't knock it till you tried it, dude. Otherwise, you just don't know.

Davian93
08-28-2009, 10:45 PM
Don't knock it till you tried it, dude. Otherwise, you just don't know.

~tips cap~

Good point. I suppose if I had chronic insomnia it would probably feel good to go under like that...scary though (I'm terrified of anesthesia personally)

Dragon Thief
08-29-2009, 01:40 AM
And Sei, that's what I mean about choice. Good qulaity, nice looking things just look better and they make you feel better. I don't care if that makes me look shallow and petty. I think it's true. That's not criticizing those who have no choice by the way. If Payless is all you can afford, fine. But if you can, you should invest. It's just about appearance. Gil alluded to it earlier, but better quality (and more expensive) is often better for you as well. Like you said, can't play soccer in crap. It hurts. My shoes are never cheaper than $100 - ever. And that's because I like to be able to walk in them, and walk after I've taken them off, which is often impossible with the cheaper options.

It boils down to taking pride in oneself. Like it or not, people - from dates to prospective employers - infer from your appearance.


I don't care if that makes me look shallow and petty. I think it's true

So, you're worried about your appearance, but then state that you don't care if others think you look (appear) shallow and petty? Eh? Again, I'm not trying to insult you or press your buttons, but it just doesn't add up to me personally.

I obviously couldn't give a damn less what 99.99% of people think about me. I know how much I'm worth - and, I'm obviously easily capable enough at letting others know that when i wish as well, all without really worrying about my appearance. And it's not just my current job - I was asked to be a manager twice while working at Walmart (and turned it down twice) while dressing the same basic way.

In my experience - and this is obviously anecdotal and probably very limited - nice appearances only work as a short duration appeal. You impress someone that first time, and then when that wears off you're back down to whatever you really have - talent, training, attitude, understanding, etc etc. This is true of jobs, of dating, etc. But the folks who worry about appearance over other things often (but not always) fall short on those, because they were more worried about appearance.

I'd rather someone learn how to manage confidence and achievement without the crutch of appearance. That's something to be proud of.

Edit: i hit back and lost half my post, and I'm not sure which parts I lost. This may not make as much sense now, but it's nearly 3 AM and I've had 4 hours of (broken) sleep in the last 40 or so, so I'll figure it out tomorrow I think.

Edit 2: I don't remember copying the text, but apparently I did, cause it was in my clipboard. It's been re-added to the post. Carry on. Second half was added below, because I don't remember how i had it all sorted out. Bleh, I'm tired, but still have insomnia.


It boils down to taking pride in oneself. Like it or not, people - from dates to prospective employers - infer from your appearance.

That's so far off base for me it's funny. I'm the senior programmer at my firm, and I work in a cap, teeshirt, and jeans. I can wear whatever I want, as long as it's not something offensive that if a client were to by chance see me in my office they would get upset. And since I've been at the company (not even two years now), I've gotten four raises for performance. Not for appearance.

My wife decided to go out on our first date because of my INCREDIBLY CHEAP Indiana Jones costume I wore on a Halloween at work one year. She thought I looked quite nice in it.

And, here's the worst part. We were making fun of 500-1500 shoes. If you can't find nice fitting, good looking, quality shoes for less than that, then appearance isn't your issue at all - it's a whole lot worse.. I say this without any rancor and no direct insult intended, but anyone who spends that kind of money on shoes just because they 'can invest in it' is an idiot. Why not invest in something that isn't so superficial as appearance? Save the money for your kids, or put it in an investment firm, or for new entertainment even.

Terez
08-29-2009, 03:16 AM
Keep in mind that expectations are often way different for women. In my experience anyway.

Sei'taer
08-29-2009, 01:59 PM
I totally agree with everything DT said.

Dragon Thief
08-29-2009, 02:22 PM
I totally agree with everything DT said.

Lies! Lies and German Propa .... er, wait, what?

Jokeslayer
08-29-2009, 04:41 PM
In my experience - and this is obviously anecdotal and probably very limited - nice appearances only work as a short duration appeal. You impress someone that first time, and then when that wears off you're back down to whatever you really have - talent, training, attitude, understanding, etc etc.

But sometimes, you have to use that first impression to get a foot in the door. It's like spell checking a job application.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-31-2009, 10:04 AM
Not everyone has a job, or is in a field where a t-shirt and jeans are acceptable attire, DT.

Davian93
08-31-2009, 11:06 AM
To clarify: I was once in the Army (as you all know). I was a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) for the final 2 years of my enlistment. I used to tell my soldiers that appearance isn't everything but it is important. For example, it used to seriously matter if a soldier polished his boots and pressed his uniform to present a "professional" appearance. Thus, I said, polishing your boots doesn't make you a good soldier but it is impossible to be perceived as a good soldier if you don't do it. Is this right? No, of course not. But it is reality. Its the same way in many corporate atmospheres. I could be the greatest employee ever but if I were to come to work in t-shirts and jeans every day or a wrinkled shirt and slacks I'd soon find myself with a reputation for slovenly work and attitude. It doesn't matter what you do if you don't also look the part. Is this always true? Again, of course not. DT is right in that the programming world/IT guys have a different standard. They can dress down and not be affected.

Dressing appropriately for the environment you work in does not make you a good employee. However, it is one of the requirements in the offices I've worked at to be thought of as a good employee. That isn't gonna change where I work or the field I work in.

Personally, I feel more comfortable in slacks and button up shirts. I dont care if I "have" to wear a tie. I think slacks are more comfortable than jeans or even sweatpants to be honest so I hvave never understood when coworkers complain about wearing them.

Does that help explain my original point?

Davian93
08-31-2009, 11:08 AM
But sometimes, you have to use that first impression to get a foot in the door. It's like spell checking a job application.

Oh God yes. I always shuddered when I got resumes with blatant mispellings and mistakes. I mean seriously, if you didn't QC your resume why in the world would you expect me to hire you?!? That's up there with being late to the interview for me.

Ishara
08-31-2009, 11:20 AM
Thank you Dav. That's eaxctly how I feel, especially as I'm faced with similar issues in a similar field (young looking for my age in a job filled with older people in a corporate environment).

DT, what I'm saying that first impressions matter. And before you even open your mouth to show off your sparkling wit and charming personality, a first impression has been made. I firmly believe that. That is how the world works, at least for me, so please don't confuse my acknowledgement of that fact with some sort of slavish need to go shopping for expensive labels. They do not equate. One is appearance and one is perception. Both are important.

Brita
08-31-2009, 11:24 AM
Dressing appropriately for the environment you work in does not make you a good employee. However, it is one of the requirements in the offices I've worked at to be thought of as a good employee. That isn't gonna change where I work or the field I work in.


And just to clarify, $500-1500 dollar shoes aren't necessary to appear professional. I have absolutely nothing against people spending their money on this, but let's just be clear that any corporation that requires this as an unspoken rule to advance is a corporation I would not waste my precious hours of life involved with.

There is looking professional and taking care in appearances (good), there is a passion for fashion and much money can be spent on this interest if so desired(no problem there), then there is unnecessary judgment and pressure to conform to costly fashion at the expense of the bank account and a person's own interests (not cool).

Crispin's Crispian
08-31-2009, 11:32 AM
I'm coming late to the discussion, but I thought I'd chime in. I work in an office where "business casual" is the code, which basically means no jeans or t-shirts.

I have three pairs of dress shoes--one pair of black lace-ups, one pair of brown lace-ups, and one pair of black pseudo-loafers. I wear the black loafers most of the time, because they are easier to take on and off at the gym, and I can take them off while sitting at my desk. IIRC, they probably cost about $60-$75. The brown shoes were probably the most expensive--they were a Christmas gift from my wife, and I'm guessing they were $100-$120. I can't rationalize spending more than that on shoes...ever. At that point, comfort doesn't matter anymore, and neither do looks. $300 shoes would have to last me three times as long as $100 shoes, because the rest isn't important.

I used to "have to" wear a tie to work every day, but I later found out it was just one guy that cared about it. Eventually, my boss got sick of wearing his, so he told me to stop. I still wear one very occasionally, but the gasps of surprise and stupid "going to a job interview" questions make it not worthwhile.

In the summer, I wear polo shirts two or three time a week, and in the winter it's sweaters. The rest of the time, it's just various button-downs.

Davian93
08-31-2009, 12:02 PM
And just to clarify, $500-1500 dollar shoes aren't necessary to appear professional. I have absolutely nothing against people spending their money on this, but let's just be clear that any corporation that requires this as an unspoken rule to advance is a corporation I would not waste my precious hours of life involved with.

Of course they're not. I just really like those loafers and for the bargain basement price of $495 I might eventually get them.

I never blow my bank account to dress well. I got to outlets whenever possible.

For example, the most expensive thing I'm wearing right now is my shoes. They are a pair of brown ECCO dress shoes and they were around $200. I've had them for 3 years and I polish them once a week to keep them clean and to protect them. In the winter I wear my cold weather boots into work and then change into my shoes to keep them clean. I'm wearing gray slacks and a purple button up shirt with a funny tie that I got from the Brooks Brothers outlet near my house. All were on sale at least 40% off and I've had all 3 for at least 1.5 years. I take care of it so it lasts long. I'm wearing a $50 belt that I got at a TJ Maxx for $10.

As for the original part of this thread that set some people off: I like to spoil my fiancee. Does she demand or even ask me to spend $500 on Cole Haan boots or those red-soled shoes? or a Burberry purse and scarf? or the Coach bag or Juicy bag or any of the other stuff I've gotten her? No, not ever once. I also "waste" money by getting her flowers every week or so...nothing crazy but at least a bouquet from the grocery store. She's probably the most down-to-earth person you'd ever meet. She is sick (as some of you know)...actually at times she's been very sick the last few years and her life can really suck. I like to get her things to pick her up when she's feeling like crap. I make a good amount of money so I buy her more expensive things. If I made less money, I'd buy her less expensive things but still try to be thoughtful. My fiancee is also a very touchy subject, as is anything to do with her health. I would never have shared any of that if I thought it would ever be used to attack me. Ripping me is one thing...go ahead, do it all you want. Ripping her is off limits and over the line. Life is short and there is no guarantee she is going to live into old age due to her condition. So I spend probably more than I should sometimes. I live moderately otherwise. I dont have a ton of electronics, I dont drive a fancy car (my car is a 5 year old Accord that is paid off...it has 113K miles but runs well so I see no need to replace it), I don't wear pricey jewelry. I don't go on vacation all the time and I dont go out to eat 4 times a week. I have very little debt and I have a positive debt ratio in that my investments (that I started from scratch with my own savings) far outweigh what little debt I carry. All in all, I think I'm pretty responsible financially. My vice is that I want to make her happy and I go out of my way to be extravagant at times to do so.

Ishara
08-31-2009, 01:38 PM
And that's that. ;)

Uno
08-31-2009, 02:17 PM
Why are we discussing men's fashion? Some unsung genius in the late 19th-century basically invented uniforms for men, so that we'd never have to worry about these kinds of things: some kind of plain suit for the office, black tie for dinner, white tie for formal occasions. Why and how did that get screwed up? If we'd just stuck to this system, no one would ever have to buy expensive loafers, because the only shoes a man would ever wear to the office were black or brown laced leather shoes, and you didn't wear brown in the city anyway, so that narrowed it down even more.

If you did some form of outdoor labour or indoor work that required work clothes, it didn't matter, anyway, as no one would expect you to look that spiffy, but for everyone else it was a perfect solution.

Sinistrum
08-31-2009, 02:36 PM
I will reask these questions since they were essentially ignored last time around. What looks good on a person? What assumptions do you make about the source of that clothing?

Gilshalos Sedai
08-31-2009, 03:28 PM
Truthfully? Whatever brings out your best and that's appropriate for each situation.

Crispin's Crispian
08-31-2009, 03:44 PM
Of course they're not. I just really like those loafers and for the bargain basement price of $495 I might eventually get them.

I never blow my bank account to dress well. I got to outlets whenever possible.

For example, the most expensive thing I'm wearing right now is my shoes. They are a pair of brown ECCO dress shoes and they were around $200. I've had them for 3 years and I polish them once a week to keep them clean and to protect them. In the winter I wear my cold weather boots into work and then change into my shoes to keep them clean. I'm wearing gray slacks and a purple button up shirt with a funny tie that I got from the Brooks Brothers outlet near my house. All were on sale at least 40% off and I've had all 3 for at least 1.5 years. I take care of it so it lasts long. I'm wearing a $50 belt that I got at a TJ Maxx for $10.

As for the original part of this thread that set some people off: I like to spoil my fiancee. Does she demand or even ask me to spend $500 on Cole Haan boots or those red-soled shoes? or a Burberry purse and scarf? or the Coach bag or Juicy bag or any of the other stuff I've gotten her? No, not ever once. I also "waste" money by getting her flowers every week or so...nothing crazy but at least a bouquet from the grocery store. She's probably the most down-to-earth person you'd ever meet. She is sick (as some of you know)...actually at times she's been very sick the last few years and her life can really suck. I like to get her things to pick her up when she's feeling like crap. I make a good amount of money so I buy her more expensive things. If I made less money, I'd buy her less expensive things but still try to be thoughtful. My fiancee is also a very touchy subject, as is anything to do with her health. I would never have shared any of that if I thought it would ever be used to attack me. Ripping me is one thing...go ahead, do it all you want. Ripping her is off limits and over the line. Life is short and there is no guarantee she is going to live into old age due to her condition. So I spend probably more than I should sometimes. I live moderately otherwise. I dont have a ton of electronics, I dont drive a fancy car (my car is a 5 year old Accord that is paid off...it has 113K miles but runs well so I see no need to replace it), I don't wear pricey jewelry. I don't go on vacation all the time and I dont go out to eat 4 times a week. I have very little debt and I have a positive debt ratio in that my investments (that I started from scratch with my own savings) far outweigh what little debt I carry. All in all, I think I'm pretty responsible financially. My vice is that I want to make her happy and I go out of my way to be extravagant at times to do so.

Dav, I didn't read this whole thread before I posted, so I spent a good 30 dizzy, WTF minutes reading the entire thing to find out how you possibly could have construed my post that way.

Wow.

And now I can't stop picture Uno looking like this:

http://pop.greenwood.com/xml-images/pop/GR2734/media//thumbs/GR2734ph39.jpg

...but with a monocle, for some reason.

Sinistrum
08-31-2009, 03:49 PM
Truthfully? Whatever brings out your best and that's appropriate for each situation.

What about my second question?

Crispin's Crispian
08-31-2009, 04:00 PM
What about my second question?
If it brings out the best, then you can assume that the person is currently the best they can be.

So if they fail to meet your approval, 86 'em.

Gilshalos Sedai
08-31-2009, 04:02 PM
My assumptions? Well, if you show up looking unkempt, I assume you really don't give a rat's ass about being there (unless I know of an extenuating circumstance or you tell me there's one).

You don't show up to a job interview or a friend's wedding in flipflops and board shorts (usually).

Sei'taer
08-31-2009, 04:31 PM
What assumptions do you make about the source of that clothing?

What about my second question?

My assumptions, they're true though.

Engineer types and office types (like drafting/CAD guys) pointy hair with stuff in it, slacks, long sleeved button down, loafers, maybe a tie too. This person will have soft hands and is not used to physical work. He is more than likely an engineer coming out to see what is going on with the job he designed. I probably make the same money he does, but he has a degree that allows him to design projects and attach a stamp to them. I have a job that allows me to stop his work because he made a mistake calculating grades, or made too many cross connections. Usually I'm the one who called and asked him to come out to the job. He is called a "suit" or "whistle britches" and when you show him a water valve, he says "Ahhh, I wondered what those looked like." NOTE: If he is wearing boots that are dirty and showing a lot of wear, then he probably knows his business. If he has black sock and loafers on, we are going to go to the muddy part of the job and have a look around.

Developers and their evil minions. Usually dressed in very high dollar tailored clothes and driving expensive cars. In debt up to their eyeballs. Hoping to be pushy enough to get you to back off on some of the details of the project, because if they have to keep up the payments for the project for very long they are going to go under and take a lot of people down with them. They spend other peoples money on the things they need to make them look ritzy and powerful. They are going to get walked through the mud one way or another...they never have boots. I like to make them walk their expensive shoes off. Even if we don't get them muddy, it's fun to imagine them at home shining up their fancy shoes after walking a construction site for a few hours. Especially nice to see dust or dirt on their white shirts or in their expensive cars. All for show. These guys are about appearances and nothing else. If appearance made you powerful, they would be the running the planet.

Contractors (company owners and office people). Down to earth. Usually wear the same thing I do. Boots, maybe a short-sleeved butoon down or polo type shirt. Drive company trucks like the rest of their guys. Worth more than all the others combined, for the most part. Good ones are not up to their ears in debt. Don't mind walking around a job in any conditions. Not showy and don't talk down to anyone. Show up at bid meetings and everything else dressed basically the same way. Usually the best to work with. Some will try to get you, but for the most part it's on the orders of the developer and they will let you know. Not really out to fuck anyone. Proud of their work and want to be able to show it off to potential clients. Want people to see their work and judge them on that.


(oh shit...works over. I'll finish later tonight.)

Davian93
08-31-2009, 05:27 PM
Dav, I didn't read this whole thread before I posted, so I spent a good 30 dizzy, WTF minutes reading the entire thing to find out how you possibly could have construed my post that way.

I wasn't referring at all to you...so no worries.

Dragon Thief
08-31-2009, 05:28 PM
DT, what I'm saying that first impressions matter. And before you even open your mouth to show off your sparkling wit and charming personality, a first impression has been made. I firmly believe that. That is how the world works, at least for me, so please don't confuse my acknowledgement of that fact with some sort of slavish need to go shopping for expensive labels. They do not equate. One is appearance and one is perception. Both are important.

Sparkling wit and charming personality? Me?

No, seriously. Me? (Where did you get that? And, no, I'm not joking. I wasn't being witty, and my personality is anything but charming - depending on the person, I'm either considered reserved & quiet or 'brutally honest'.)

My biggest point (and I may not have made this very well) is that many folks on this thread were stating that a first impression was mandatory, and that it was based off of appearance. I used my specific example to prove it was not. My boss's first impression of me actually came off of my MySpace page as he was researching me online. Or I guess my resume, since that made him to decide to search online. Either way, my MS page was a complete joke - it had a huge red skull on it, filled with rock & metal music graphics, etc. It was a space about me, not a space I intended to use as a portfolio. Regardless, my boss saw a pic of me in a "Vader was framed tee shirt", and therefore conducted my job interview while wearing a Darth Vader costume (full on: helmet, gloves, capes, etc) and hired me on the spot. I believe I wore some khakis (not slacks, these were more cargo style), some casual slip on brown shoes, and a polo shirt untucked (but not wrinkled or anything). Untucked, however, tends to look nicer on me than tucked in, what with the belly and all.

Now, yes, I 'dressed up' for the interview. I'm not trying to say I didn't dress better than I normally do. But I'm certain my clothes didn't make or break the interview - he was impressed by with what I had self-taught myself.

Does this mean first impressions don't matter? Of course not. I truly didn't intend to say they did. I just meant that first impressions shouldn't be solely based upon appearance. You know, "Don't judge a book by its cover." I would agree more with Dav on the resumes, however; writing skill is a part of viewing the talent of a person. It can show thoroughness, intellect, communication skills, etc. It may not be wholly relevant to every situation, but I doubt there's a whole lot of jobs where a basic writing skill isn't helpful (well, ones in which you need a resume for, anyways).

Oh, and SDog, I've met Uno in person. You're close. No top hat, lose the bowtie. Replace the cane with the WoT Sword, add the monocle, and put a star on the shoulder, and add a pipe and you've nailed it. And possibly have him mutter "kids" at you every 20 minutes or so.

Dragon Thief
08-31-2009, 05:35 PM
Not everyone has a job, or is in a field where a t-shirt and jeans are acceptable attire, DT.

I didn't intent to imply they did. I meant to say that not everyone has a job, or is in a field where a t-shirt and jeans aren't acceptable. There seems to be a blanket opinion that most jobs require a business presence, and I'm just using my personal experience to say that's not true.

I've worked a McDonalds, a civil engineering firm (temp job where I helped create the blueprints [sewer/water systems, parking lots, etc] for one of the larger high schools in KY), a restaurant dishwasher, Walmart, and my current job. McDonalds was the only one that had a uniform, although I had to wear the vest (and later correct colors instead of vest) at Walmart. The other three I wore jeans and shirts - although I think I had to wear some sort of casual shirt at the engineering job, but it's been 10 years and I'm not 100% sure. I remember being told to keep some 'dirty clothes' for that job, although I only used them once or twice as we went out to a survey spot and verified something from the survey crew.

Jokeslayer
09-01-2009, 04:07 AM
Oh God yes. I always shuddered when I got resumes with blatant mispellings and mistakes. I mean seriously, if you didn't QC your resume why in the world would you expect me to hire you?!? That's up there with being late to the interview for me.

One thing that's really pissing me off right now is job adverts that aren't spelled correctly or where the grammar is wrong. I think it mostly annoys me because I don't have enough choice to just ignore them but I can't imagine wanting to work in a place where my boss can't correctly use their/there/they're or even spellcheck.

Ishara
09-01-2009, 07:36 AM
One thing that's really pissing me off right now is job adverts that aren't spelled correctly or where the grammar is wrong. I think it mostly annoys me because I don't have enough choice to just ignore them but I can't imagine wanting to work in a place where my boss can't correctly use their/there/they're or even spellcheck.
You're right. That would piss me off too.

DT, I don't think we disagree. I just happen to work in a corporate and government environment where attire is business casual at the least. It is not acceptable to show up to work inflip flops, untucked shirts or shorts. It's just not. So that's what I speak to, cause it's what I know. Clearly your work expererience has been different than mine.

But as much as first impressions shouldn't be based on appearances alone - they are. I'm not talking about checking on FaceBook or MS (and I'm sure you candmit that perhaps your particular experience was more the exception than it is the norm). I'm talking standing up to shake someone's hand at the interview. That first impression is based on appearances. Before you've even opened your mouth, an impression has been made (which was what I was trying to say earlier, not insulting your charm or wit ;)). Now, you can certainly force someone to re-evaluate their opinion of you by showing just how awesome you are at x,y and z during the interview, but you're likely to get ahead and stay there if you make a positive firt impression.

Sini: What looks good on a person is question with way too mnay variables to answer properly. It depends on the person and on the situation. Dress appropriately for the event (i.e. no board shorts and flip flops at a wedding, unless you've been asked to dress that way). What assumptions do you make about the suorce of that clothing? I'm not even sure I understand what you're trying to get at here. You make infereces about the person, not about where they got the clothes. So, going to a job interview looking schlubby can create the impression that you don't give a shit about the workplace or the work that they do. It may not be true, but that's definitely an assumtion that people make.

GonzoTheGreat
09-01-2009, 08:28 AM
Sini: What looks good on a person is question with way too mnay variables to answer properly.Definitely. There are people on whom nothing at all looks good, there are others who should definitely not ever be naked in public.

JSUCamel
09-01-2009, 11:51 AM
I don't think anyone's really arguing that looking nice is a bad idea, and I don't think anyone here thinks that you should go into a job interview looking like crap.

However, I would argue that first impressions are an either/or proposition, rather than a rating of 1-10. You either look nice or you look like a slob.

Here's an example:

http://jsucamel.dreamhosters.com/example2.jpg

If a woman walked into an interview looking like this, I'd say she looks nice. Just looking at her, I can tell that she takes pride in her appearance, that she made an effort to look nice for the interview, and that she looks professional.

http://jsucamel.dreamhosters.com/example1.jpg

If this woman walked into an interview looking like this, I'd say the exact same thing. She looks nice, obviously takes pride in her appearance, made an effort to look nice for the interview, and looks professional.

Am I wrong?

Gilshalos Sedai
09-01-2009, 11:55 AM
Yes. ;)


But only because those are LBD's (Little Black Dresses, guys) and inappropriate for a job interview unless you've added a jacket over the sleeveless top. Sleeveless anything is bad in a job interview.

I wouldn't hire either of them because they're plainly unfamiliar with office attire and what's appropriate. Those dresses, to me, scream that they're more interested in looking hot than professional and may be HUGELY disruptive flirts.

JSUCamel
09-01-2009, 12:18 PM
But only because those are LBD's (Little Black Dresses, guys) and inappropriate for a job interview unless you've added a jacket over the sleeveless top. Sleeveless anything is bad in a job interview.

Fair enough.

How about these men?

http://jsucamel.dreamhosters.com/example3.jpg

and

http://jsucamel.dreamhosters.com/example4.jpg

They're both well dressed, well groomed, and obviously took the effort to look nice for the interview. Are either of them slobs?

Gilshalos Sedai
09-01-2009, 12:46 PM
So far, none of the pics you've posted are slobs. And I don't know men's fashion as well as women's. Are those suits appropriate? I guess. Hard to tell from the pictures what fabric they're made of since that's really the defining factor in a men's suit. I wouldn't suggest you wear a linen suit to an interview, for instance. It's still a suit, but the fabric is problematic. Men's suits are all about the fabric and the tie.

Davian93
09-01-2009, 12:55 PM
So far, none of the pics you've posted are slobs. And I don't know men's fashion as well as women's. Are those suits appropriate? I guess. Hard to tell from the pictures what fabric they're made of since that's really the defining factor in a men's suit. I wouldn't suggest you wear a linen suit to an interview, for instance. It's still a suit, but the fabric is problematic. Men's suits are all about the fabric and the tie.

Both are dark suits with somewhat plain ties...excellent suits for an interview.

JSUCamel
09-01-2009, 01:00 PM
So far, none of the pics you've posted are slobs. And I don't know men's fashion as well as women's. Are those suits appropriate? I guess. Hard to tell from the pictures what fabric they're made of since that's really the defining factor in a men's suit. I wouldn't suggest you wear a linen suit to an interview, for instance. It's still a suit, but the fabric is problematic. Men's suits are all about the fabric and the tie.

I think for 90% of jobs, suits are suits. I've never really heard of any such thing as an inappropriate suit, unless you go to a black-tie affair wearing a blazer when everyone else is wearing a tuxedo.

Point is, neither of these guys look like slobs. They look nice -- nice enough to make a good first impression. They won't be rejected because of their looks.

Why is this important?

My original argument was (and still is) that cost and looks aren't necessarily a direct correlation. Ishara has implied several times that a more expensive item of clothing is better than a cheaper item of clothing. While this is true at low costs, there comes a point of diminishing returns. In other words, a $50 pair of shoes is probably going to look and feel way better than a $20 pair of shoes. However, a $500 pair of shoes isn't necessarily going to be 5 times better looking (or comfortable) than a $100 pair of shoes. It may very well be, but in terms of the test she assigned (a job interview), it's pretty much irrelevant most of the time.

In the examples above, the first suit is a $2000 Armani suit. The second suit is a $350 suit from Macy's. Either would be more than sufficient to make a good first impression (based on looks -- what comes out of your mouth is another issue entirely).

For the vast majority of people, the second suit is more than enough to make a good first impression. Yes, there are situations where the Armani is appropriate (upper class black-tie affairs, etc, especially if everyone else is wearing an Armani-equivalent). However, the reason one buys an Armani is not because of looks or comfort, but because of the brand name.

Imagine the following conversation (I've actually had this conversation, btw):

A: Hey, nice suit! Is that an Armani?
B: No, I got it at J.C. Penny at half the price of an Armani. It looks just like one though!
A: ...Oh. Meh.

Another example of cost not being related to looks is a Rolex watch. Rolex watches can go for thousands of dollars. Imagine the following conversation:

A: Hey, nice watch! Is that a Rolex?
B: No, it's an off-brand that looks exactly the same. Isn't it nice?
A: ...Eh, it's okay.

The point that Sini, ST, DT, (et al) and I are making is that buying a $500 pair of shoes instead of a $100 pair of almost-as-good-looking shoes is borderline ridiculous. To say that one makes a better first impression than the other is just plain false. You can make a great first impression wearing off-brand, cheaper clothing.

The other implication of some peoples' posts here is that if you're not wearing an Armani, you're wearing flip flops and shorts. Sometimes stating the obvious is necessary, so I'll go ahead and do it: this implication, too, is a false assumption. You can look nice and not break the bank.

Brita
09-01-2009, 01:03 PM
I concur. Well said Camel, and nice little picture trick to build up your case :D

Davian93
09-01-2009, 01:08 PM
Honestly, the MOST important thing about the clothing is that it FITS. Wear clothes that actually fit instead of worrying about impressing a salesperson "I swear I'm a 6..." or "I know I'm still a 42 Long"...etc etc.



An example of an innappropriate "suit":

http://www.costumesofnashua.com/CNWebSite105/Active905/Pages/CostumeRental/Austin60s70s/Pics%20Austin1970s/AustinDumbJC.jpg

Though technically they are tuxedos so it doesn't work...I just really wanted to use this picture.

Davian93
09-01-2009, 01:09 PM
I concur. Well said Camel, and nice little picture trick to build up your case :D

The slight issue is that a $350 suit is still a Suit...we're arguing different things at this point.

Davian93
09-01-2009, 01:10 PM
An excellent suit:

http://www.1960sfancydress.co.uk/images/60538.jpg

Sinistrum
09-01-2009, 01:30 PM
A: Hey, nice suit! Is that an Armani?
B: No, I got it at J.C. Penny at half the price of an Armani. It looks just like one though!
A: ...Oh. Meh.

Another example of cost not being related to looks is a Rolex watch. Rolex watches can go for thousands of dollars. Imagine the following conversation:

A: Hey, nice watch! Is that a Rolex?
B: No, it's an off-brand that looks exactly the same. Isn't it nice?
A: ...Eh, it's okay.

This is sort of the point of my second question about assumptions. The point of that question is that when you see someone who looks nice, you automatically assume to some degree, that they spend a good bit of money on what they are wearing. Hence why people ask about labels whenever they compliment someone on something they are wearing. Those of you arguing that people make assumptions about people based upon the way they dress are right. One of those primary assumptions is the amount of money they make. Which brings me back to my point about fashion just being a way for people to flaunt wealth.

Jokeslayer
09-01-2009, 01:39 PM
If a woman walked into an interview looking like this, I'd say she looks nice. Just looking at her, I can tell that she takes pride in her appearance, that she made an effort to look nice for the interview, and that she looks professional.

Just looking at her, I can tell she needs a cheeseburger. And appears to be wearing a garbage bag with shoulder straps.

Sei'taer
09-01-2009, 02:42 PM
Funny thing, Camel is that my conversations usually go like this:

Developer: "This mud/dirt/tar will never wash out of my Armani suit! Dammit!"

Me: "Weird. That sucks...it washes out of my Dickies/Wranglers/Levis just fine."

JSUCamel
09-01-2009, 02:53 PM
Just looking at her, I can tell she needs a cheeseburger. And appears to be wearing a garbage bag with shoulder straps.

lol, touche!

JSUCamel
09-01-2009, 02:58 PM
The slight issue is that a $350 suit is still a Suit...we're arguing different things at this point.

Sure, you may be arguing something different.

I'm arguing that the principle stays the same, regardless of the item of clothing. Whether it's a $100 pair of shoes and a $500 pair, or a $300 suit and a $2000 suit, the principle is the same: just because something is cheaper doesn't mean it's going to make you look cheap and unprofessional, which seems to be the implication that some of you are making and the implication with which I disagree.

I don't think anyone here thinks that looking cheap and unprofessional is a good idea for a job interview -- that's not what we're saying. We're saying you can look just as professional and good looking with a $300 suit as you can with a $2000 suit, and your shoes can look professional and good looking if they cost $100 or $500.

Therefore, unless you just have a thing for brands and have a need to, as Sinistrum put it, flaunt your wealth and social status, there's no need to spend $500 on a pair of shoes. I mean, if you can afford it, by all means, go ahead. I'll just take my other $400 and spend it on something more useful and cost-efficient.

Jokeslayer
09-01-2009, 03:35 PM
Therefore, unless you just have a thing for brands and have a need to, as Sinistrum put it, flaunt your wealth and social status, there's no need to spend $500 on a pair of shoes. I mean, if you can afford it, by all means, go ahead. I'll just take my other $400 and spend it on something more useful and cost-efficient.

Something else worth considering in all this is the opportunity cost incurred by buying cheaper products. What I mean is that if you're looking for decent, comfortable smart shoes, it's probably going to be easier to find them if you're willing to pay $200 than if you'll only pay $80. So if I can go to the shoe store on Saturday morning at 9AM, pay $200 for my shoes and be done by 9.30, but you're still looking for your cheaper pair at 4.30 on Sunday, I've just paid $120 to not spend my weekend shoe shopping. Sounds worth it to me.

JSUCamel
09-01-2009, 03:44 PM
Something else worth considering in all this is the opportunity cost incurred by buying cheaper products. What I mean is that if you're looking for decent, comfortable smart shoes, it's probably going to be easier to find them if you're willing to pay $200 than if you'll only pay $80. So if I can go to the shoe store on Saturday morning at 9AM, pay $200 for my shoes and be done by 9.30, but you're still looking for your cheaper pair at 4.30 on Sunday, I've just paid $120 to not spend my weekend shoe shopping. Sounds worth it to me.

I'm not sure that's a practical or common scenario. I can see it happening, but I've never been in that situation (and I don't know many who have, but it's not something that comes up in casual conversations: "Hey man, how long did you spend shopping for those shoes?" Heh.) I've never had a problem finding a cheap pair of shoes -- Target, Walmart, Payless, DSW, and other "cheap" stores always have a massive selection to choose from. On the other hand, if I'm going to spend $200, I'm going to shop around and find the BEST pair of shoes I can find for $200, because to me, that's a lot of change to drop on a pair of shoes. Assuming I go out intending to drop $200 on a pair of shoes, I'm gonna spend quite awhile looking for the right pair. A pair of $80 shoes is less of a commitment and I'm more likely to grab something that feels nice and looks nice. It won't have to be perfect.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-01-2009, 03:53 PM
Actually, if I could afford a $200 pair of shoes that didn't hurt, didn't chafe until I blistered, and I found right away without trying on 100 different pair, I would totally buy them. Because it DOES take me forever to shoe shop. And not because I like shoes all that much, but because my feet are weird.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-01-2009, 04:09 PM
Of course, this mythological pair of shoes doesn't exist. I should know, I've looked.

Jokeslayer
09-01-2009, 05:25 PM
I'm not sure that's a practical or common scenario. I can see it happening, but I've never been in that situation (and I don't know many who have, but it's not something that comes up in casual conversations: "Hey man, how long did you spend shopping for those shoes?" Heh.) I've never had a problem finding a cheap pair of shoes -- Target, Walmart, Payless, DSW, and other "cheap" stores always have a massive selection to choose from. On the other hand, if I'm going to spend $200, I'm going to shop around and find the BEST pair of shoes I can find for $200, because to me, that's a lot of change to drop on a pair of shoes. Assuming I go out intending to drop $200 on a pair of shoes, I'm gonna spend quite awhile looking for the right pair. A pair of $80 shoes is less of a commitment and I'm more likely to grab something that feels nice and looks nice. It won't have to be perfect.
You're probably right at $80 and $200. Tweak the numbers down if it helps (though you'll probably get to a point where the upper number is low enough to seem reasonable anyway, in which case it doesn't really matter).

Zanguini
09-01-2009, 05:48 PM
I'll just take my other $400 and spend it on something more useful and cost-efficient.
Like Grilled Cheese Sandwiches

Davian93
09-01-2009, 06:21 PM
I'm arguing that the principle stays the same, regardless of the item of clothing. Whether it's a $100 pair of shoes and a $500 pair, or a $300 suit and a $2000 suit, the principle is the same: just because something is cheaper doesn't mean it's going to make you look cheap and unprofessional, which seems to be the implication that some of you are making and the implication with which I disagree.

Here's a minor issue: I wear almost exclusively Brooks Brothers for work. The major reason isn't the cost (which can be excessive even if I get most of it from their outlet store). Its the fit. BB is the only business clothing I can get that makes in between sizes. I wear a 35 X 33 slacks and I also wear a slightly odd shirt size. Anywhere else I am forced to get a 36 X 32 (too big of a waist and too short a slack length) or a 36 X 34 (bunches up too much on my shoes). So to look professional (and avoid tailoring fees (which are quite excessive at times), I pay extra up front as they carry that size.

Birgitte
09-01-2009, 08:22 PM
Like Grilled Cheese Sandwiches


All threads lead to Grilled Cheese Sandwiches

Dragon Thief
09-01-2009, 08:39 PM
All threads lead to Grilled Cheese Sandwiches

So, B. Nice threads you got on there, ya know? :D

Birgitte
09-01-2009, 08:44 PM
lol... Why thank you, DT. But threads have nothing to do with Grilled Cheese Sandwiches.

Edit for clarification: MY threads have nothing to do with Grilled Cheese Sandwiches.

Birgitte
09-01-2009, 09:43 PM
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." -- Mark Twain

I've just always enjoyed this quote.

Terez
09-01-2009, 11:18 PM
Are we still talking about shoes? What happened to health care and Michael Jackson?

GonzoTheGreat
09-02-2009, 04:12 AM
Are we still talking about shoes? What happened to health care and Michael Jackson?I don't think people want to think of MJ and Grilled Cheese on the same page.

Birgitte
09-02-2009, 08:40 AM
I don't think people want to think of MJ and Grilled Cheese on the same page.

Yeah. We really, really don't. I'm not sure what this thread is actually about anymore. It's been hijacked too many times. Not that I mind...

Ishara
09-02-2009, 08:47 AM
Okay. For the LAST time I have not inferred, implied or said outright that a more expensive item of clothing is better than a cheaper item of clothing.

I have said the following: And for the record, I'm not talking blue-collar here. That is also DAMN sexy. I'm talking cheap and indifferent, which is definitely not.
Cheap, as in poor quality. Not inexpensive.

Good quality, nice looking things just look better and they make you feel better...That's not criticizing those who have no choice by the way. If Payless is all you can afford, fine. Note that I didn't say everyone needs to buy $500 shoes.

from the same post:
It boils down to taking pride in oneself. Like it or not, people - from dates to prospective employers - infer from your appearance.

I'm not advocating buying $500 loafers if you're never going to wear them. Spend $300 on a great pair of work boots instead.
and from the same post,
Money doesn't always indicate qulaity it sometimes just indicates a lack of common sense ...Quality is KEY.

It's not about ostentatious displays of wealth. It's about looking the part.

First off, no one is saying that it has anything to do with money. It's to do with QUALITY.

In sum, I have not once said that everyone should run out and buy a $500 pair of loafer. But if Dav wants to, what the hell is wrong with that?

I have not once said that people who can only afford to shop at off-name stores and can't afford to wear brands naturally look less put together than someone who can. Please. I count myself in with the fist batch. The only legitimate brand I won is LuluLemon, and I work out in that clothes, I don't wear it to work!

It's about buying things - from wherever - that don't fall apart after the first wash and that make you look good so that you feel good.

Sei'taer
09-02-2009, 08:54 AM
It's about buying things - from wherever - that don't fall apart after the first wash and that make you look good so that you feel good.

So, my wranglers that I bought in 1996 at wallyworld and still wear must be superdupertydoo high walmart quality. ;P

Davian93
09-02-2009, 08:58 AM
Ishara, there's no point in trying to argue it at this point. Your words will simply be twisted or ignored.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-02-2009, 09:05 AM
Actually, Sei, Wranglers are quality jeans. They last forever. As a result, they don't follow fashion trends in jeans. Which means the brand is doomed to stay at Wally World because they're for function, not fashion. Levis has it's functional jeans, but they also have a LOT of different fashion ones which makes certain they can market to different, higher-end stores.

The worst pair of jeans I've ever owned, however, were Lee. *shudder*

Crispin's Crispian
09-02-2009, 09:35 AM
Here's a minor issue: I wear almost exclusively Brooks Brothers for work. The major reason isn't the cost (which can be excessive even if I get most of it from their outlet store). Its the fit. BB is the only business clothing I can get that makes in between sizes. I wear a 35 X 33 slacks and I also wear a slightly odd shirt size. Anywhere else I am forced to get a 36 X 32 (too big of a waist and too short a slack length) or a 36 X 34 (bunches up too much on my shoes). So to look professional (and avoid tailoring fees (which are quite excessive at times), I pay extra up front as they carry that size.
I used to be the same way, or, at least, I found that the mid-sizes fit way better. Try Land's End. They have good quality stuff in mid-sizes, and while they're not known for suits or other business clothing, you can still get it there.

Sei'taer
09-02-2009, 09:52 AM
Ishara, there's no point in trying to argue it at this point. Your words will simply be twisted or ignored.

Oh c'mon. I make fun of anybody who has to play dress up to go to work. I think it's silly but if you're comfortable in your collared shirt and hangmans noose, more power to you.

Crispin's Crispian
09-02-2009, 10:46 AM
Okay. For the LAST time, I have inferred, implied or said outright that cheap is the same as poor quality and inexpensive.

Note that I didn't not say everyone needs to buy $500 shoes.

In sum, I have not once, but twice, said that everyone should run out and buy a $500 pair of loafers. If Dav wants to, what the hell is wrong with that?

I have not once, but three times, said that people who can only afford to shop at off-name stores and can't afford to wear brands naturally look less put together than someone who can. Please. I count myself in with the second batch. The only legitimate brand I won't buy is LuluLemon.

It's about buying things that make you look good so that you feel good.

QFL

Ishara
09-02-2009, 10:54 AM
I don't get how deliberately misquoting me is useful here. Awesome.

Crispin's Crispian
09-02-2009, 11:03 AM
I don't get how deliberately misquoting me is useful here. Awesome.
Since when does being useful have anything to do with this thread? I was just fulfilling Dav's prophecy literally. Ironically. With humor, or so I thought.

Don't get your $1,200 panties in a bunch. ;)

Davian93
09-02-2009, 11:03 AM
I don't get how deliberately misquoting me is useful here. Awesome.

I have no idea.


BTW, what does "QFL" mean? (to Sdog)

I'm unfamiliar with that acryonym.

Crispin's Crispian
09-02-2009, 11:06 AM
I have no idea.


BTW, what does "QFL" mean? (to Sdog)

I'm unfamiliar with that acryonym.


Oi.

Try this. (http://theoryland.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58128#poststop)

Sei'taer
09-02-2009, 11:12 AM
I don't get how deliberately misquoting me is useful here. Awesome.

I didn't do it deliberately...unless that means "on purpose".....well....then yeah.

Did you ever have the "quit touching me" argument with a sibling? Yeah, it's like that. Except I'm not touching, just holding my finger microscopically close. If you move just a little you will touch me and I can say "quit touching me" and eventually Mama Tana will come along and tell us to knock it off. It'll be fun!

Davian93
09-02-2009, 11:15 AM
The ironic thing is that I'm actually a really good bargain shopper and I buy top of the line stuff for ridiculously low prices sometimes.

For example, some of you might know that I really love to cook (hey, I'm all man!). So, last year I was in a local TJ Maxx and saw an All-Clad Stainless Steel cookware set for super cheap. It goes retail at a Williams Sonoma type place for maybe $500-600 depending on which pots/pans you end up with. I was able to get the equivalent set piecemeal (but all matching) from the TJ Maxx for maybe $200 total. This cookware, while far more expensive than my previous set (bought at a WalMart when I first moved to VA in 2004 after leaving the Army) will probably last me the rest of my life if I take good care of it (no brillo pads, no metal utensils, etc). It cooks awesome (far better than the old set (which I still have for additional pots/pans when we're doing Thanksgiving/Christmas meals) due to its better quality steel and sandwiched copper lining. Granted, some would walk in my kitchen and see it hanging and think "look at Dav flaunting his wealth" and assume I spent some ridiculous amount on them.

Its like the vintage Burberry trenchcoat I found at a thrift store for $20. I love it as its in great condition and a new one would cost me $700 and I would never buy it. Its also vintage which I love. I was able to narrow down its age by researching the label design to the late 50s/early 60s. I was also able to find much much more expensive versions of it online through vintage dealers that knew what it was worth instead of the thrift shop I bought it at on the cheap.

Yeah, I might buy fairly expensive clothing sometimes but I also try to do it as cheaply as possible and I love finding bargains. Another awesome find was a bunch of silk scarves I bought my fiancee. We were on Martha's Vineyard for the weekend and we found an antique shop that had a bunch of vintage Hermes, Chanel, YSL silk scarves on sale for $15 a piece. I bought 10 of them for $100 and made the old lady that owned the place very happy. Little did she know that they went for about $200-300 a piece new and that vintage Hermes scarves are worth their weight in gold (probably more than their weight actually). (Note: Hermes scarves are the ones you will always see Elizabeth II wearing for example). My fiancee LOVES them and we still laugh about finding them.

Ironically, some clothing can actually be an investment if you take really good care of it. If you are ever in Manhattan, hit up a vintage shop and you will see high end designer vintage (couture mainly) going for much more than it even originally sold for. Its crazy. But like baseball cards, antiques and any other collectable, its worth something to the right person.

I'm rambling because I'm on pretty powerful painkillers for my back right now so this might not make much sense.