I got a good laugh from I got a good laugh from Shadowfax’s comment from another thread so rather than threadjacking, I’m posting here.
[quote=Shadowfax]
Is this like having women wear burkas because men can’t control themselves around women if they’re not wearing full body sheets for clothing?[/quote]
I don’t think that form-fitted clothing should be banned but if were, it should be banned for every woman equally.
Besides, what is form-fitting? Less than x inches of air between the skin and clothing?
I’ve been to many banks and I believe that certain people should indeed be banned from wearing form fitted clothing, but not Debrahlee.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 13, 2010 @
9:55 AM
I would think that a bank so I would think that a bank so short of “assets” would want to keep the ones it has.
davelj
June 13, 2010 @
10:24 AM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:I [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I would think that a bank so short of “assets” would want to keep the ones it has.[/quote]
Very nice. The only part about this that bothers me just a tad (from the article):
***********
“The reality is, I’m a size 32 DD. I’m very skinny, and then I have curves. So, of course, on my body, the turtleneck is going to make it more noticeable. But I’m not showing cleavage. We wear jackets.”
She said a co-worker who shopped with her and bought the same styles and designer brands never got in trouble.
“I said, ‘You are discriminating to me, because of my body type’,” she said. “This is genetic. What am I supposed to do?”
************
After the fact, it’s been revealed (no pun intended) that Ms. Lorenzana not only has breast implants but was featured in a TV promotion for them (back in the early naughties). Now I have zero problem with this at all – in fact, quite the contrary, I admire Ms. Lorenzana’s desire for enhancements. But… to suggest that it’s all “genetic” and “what am I supposed to do” is silly.
My preference would be for her to just stand up and say, “Hey, I’m hot. And I have breast implants. And I like attracting the attention of men. And I like wearing really tight clothing that plenty of other women at this company wear. So, if you want to apply a certain dress code to all of the women here, then so be it. But don’t single me out because I’m, like, totally hot and, like, my male co-workers have problems controlling their peckers’ subconscious urges.”
NotCranky
June 13, 2010 @
2:36 PM
davelj wrote:Allan from [quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I would think that a bank so short of “assets” would want to keep the ones it has.[/quote]
Very nice. The only part about this that bothers me just a tad (from the article):
***********
“The reality is, I’m a size 32 DD. I’m very skinny, and then I have curves. So, of course, on my body, the turtleneck is going to make it more noticeable. But I’m not showing cleavage. We wear jackets.”
She said a co-worker who shopped with her and bought the same styles and designer brands never got in trouble.
“I said, ‘You are discriminating to me, because of my body type’,” she said. “This is genetic. What am I supposed to do?”
************
After the fact, it’s been revealed (no pun intended) that Ms. Lorenzana not only has breast implants but was featured in a TV promotion for them (back in the early naughties). Now I have zero problem with this at all – in fact, quite the contrary, I admire Ms. Lorenzana’s desire for enhancements. But… to suggest that it’s all “genetic” and “what am I supposed to do” is silly.
My preference would be for her to just stand up and say, “Hey, I’m hot. And I have breast implants. And I like attracting the attention of men. And I like wearing really tight clothing that plenty of other women at this company wear. So, if you want to apply a certain dress code to all of the women here, then so be it. But don’t single me out because I’m, like, totally hot and, like, my male co-workers have problems controlling their peckers’ subconscious urges.”[/quote]
In amateur anthroplogical terms this woman is a full time calienta huevos. I guarantee there are many subtle and not so subtle gestures that get around with he titilating “impossible to hide” assets. She probably strategically puts everything from her red painted finger nails to the office stapler in her mouth and bites them much more than average women do at work. Guarantee she is flirting like crazy while trying to hide it and each poor bastard it happens to thinks he is the only one and he might just hit the jack pot.When none of them get it but are totally fixated on the calienta huevos, you got major dysfunction. This is a huge human resources failure. If you are going to let a calienta huevos work in your bank you have to make sure the dorks realize that they should contain their fantasies of women to internet porn during working hours so that they can be fired with no law suits.
In amateur anthroplogical terms this woman is a full time calienta huevos. [/quote]
Perhaps she’s a “tease” (in gringo terms)… but I’m not sure if that’s the full story. In the promotional video for breast implants (yes, I watched part of it… inquiring minds and all…), she made it quite clear that she was getting implants because she wanted “to attract a handsome wealthy guy like Ben Affleck” and felt implants would help in that pursuit. So, in that same vein, assuming she was flirting in the office at all, it may have been more about actually finding a (successful) mate and less about just being a tease. (It might be difficult to distinguish between the two.) Of course, who knows… I just hope this stays in the news for a while.
briansd1
June 14, 2010 @
9:53 AM
davelj wrote: I just hope [quote=davelj] I just hope this stays in the news for a while.[/quote]
Me too. I just love how she says “turtleneck” with a slight Spanish accent. It’s sounds so cute.
Shadowfax
June 13, 2010 @
10:25 AM
Typically, overweight women Typically, overweight women should be banned from wearing lycra shorts to work, while Hooters would encourage it’s “right-sized” workers to wear as much as possible. I guess it depends on the “corporate culture.” Maybe the Taliban has a point–avoid the slippery slope argument and just have everyone wear a full-body, loose fitting sheet! Hm, I’m kinda understanding the logic now….
PS–this is a totally OT, fully thread and I don’t think anyone would care if it’s jacked….
Should we talk about interest rates or derivatives now?
briansd1
June 13, 2010 @
11:00 AM
Shadowfax wrote: Maybe the [quote=Shadowfax] Maybe the Taliban has a point–avoid the slippery slope argument and just have everyone wear a full-body, loose fitting sheet! Hm, I’m kinda understanding the logic now….
[/quote]
I’m kinda understanding the Taliban logic now also.
FWIW, the burqa isn’t the same as the other outfits. I have the different outfit names confused. I believe that in Egypt or Dubai some women have gotten in trouble for not being conservative enough and wearing “sexy” form-fitting and colorful religious-attire.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 13, 2010 @
11:24 AM
Shadowfax wrote:
Should we [quote=Shadowfax]
Should we talk about interest rates or derivatives now?[/quote]
Shadowfax: I don’t know if you’ve read Das’ “Traders, Guns and Money” yet, but I highly recommend it. I re-read it recently (during the run-up to FinReg) to refresh my memory on derivatives and it remains one of the best books for the layman on the subject. Its written in a very fast-paced, narrative style and isn’t dense or heavy. It will also scare the ever-lovin’ bejesus out of you. Seriously.
afx114
June 13, 2010 @
11:32 AM
This thread is useless This thread is useless without pics.
davelj
June 13, 2010 @
11:51 AM
afx114 wrote:This thread is [quote=afx114]This thread is useless without pics.[/quote]
Well, impaired at least. I think I used to know how to post pics… but I’ve forgotten along the way.
scaredyclassic
June 13, 2010 @
11:52 AM
this is only happening this is only happening because obama is so sexy. wait. is that starting a political slap-fest? I retract! I recant!
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Shadowfax]
Should we talk about interest rates or derivatives now?[/quote]
Shadowfax: I don’t know if you’ve read Das’ “Traders, Guns and Money” yet, but I highly recommend it. I re-read it recently (during the run-up to FinReg) to refresh my memory on derivatives and it remains one of the best books for the layman on the subject. Its written in a very fast-paced, narrative style and isn’t dense or heavy. It will also scare the ever-lovin’ bejesus out of you. Seriously.[/quote]
Nice attempted-jack, AFF. But I am here to keep it fluffy…
[img_assist|nid=13442|title=now THAT’s a burqa!|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=262|height=306]
Allan from Fallbrook
June 13, 2010 @
12:19 PM
Shadowfax wrote:
Should we [quote=Shadowfax]
Should we talk about interest rates or derivatives now?
Nice attempted-jack, AFF. But I am here to keep it fluffy…
[/quote]
Shadowfax: So my responding to your threadjack is, in itself, a threadjack? Sheesh.
Nice getaway sticks on that woman, though.
Shadowfax
June 13, 2010 @
12:22 PM
Wasn’t a completed “jack,” Wasn’t a completed “jack,” just an attempted one… I kept us on-topic. Can’t let you go running off to debate something serious on this particular topic…
poorgradstudent
June 13, 2010 @
7:40 PM
Here’s the thing… from the Here’s the thing… from the interviews with that woman, it doesn’t exactly sound like she has a pleasant personality. “I’m hot, all my female co-workers are fat” isn’t exactly going to Win Friends and Influence People. On top of that, she clearly had a personality conflict with her immediate supervisor.
I’m not saying we know the facts of the case. There’s a lot of he said-she said here. Basically, she’s trying to frame it as a case of wrongful termination, as opposed to just simple insubordination.
davelj
June 14, 2010 @
9:45 AM
poorgradstudent wrote:Here’s [quote=poorgradstudent]Here’s the thing… from the interviews with that woman, it doesn’t exactly sound like she has a pleasant personality. “I’m hot, all my female co-workers are fat” isn’t exactly going to Win Friends and Influence People. On top of that, she clearly had a personality conflict with her immediate supervisor.
I’m not saying we know the facts of the case. There’s a lot of he said-she said here. Basically, she’s trying to frame it as a case of wrongful termination, as opposed to just simple insubordination.[/quote]
If Citi papered her file with “real” issues of incompetence (that is, not related to tight sweaters and short skirts), then maybe they’ll get out of this one easily. But if they have nothing in the files… they’re going to be settling this one for a big pile of dough. Firing folks efficiently is more about good record keeping than anything else.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 14, 2010 @
10:04 AM
davelj wrote:poorgradstudent [quote=davelj][quote=poorgradstudent]Here’s the thing… from the interviews with that woman, it doesn’t exactly sound like she has a pleasant personality. “I’m hot, all my female co-workers are fat” isn’t exactly going to Win Friends and Influence People. On top of that, she clearly had a personality conflict with her immediate supervisor.
I’m not saying we know the facts of the case. There’s a lot of he said-she said here. Basically, she’s trying to frame it as a case of wrongful termination, as opposed to just simple insubordination.[/quote]
If Citi papered her file with “real” issues of incompetence (that is, not related to tight sweaters and short skirts), then maybe they’ll get out of this one easily. But if they have nothing in the files… they’re going to be settling this one for a big pile of dough. Firing folks efficiently is more about good record keeping than anything else.[/quote]
Dave: Having gone through more than one wrongful term/constructive discharge lawsuit during my corporate days, I agree with you 100%.
However, Citi’s problem is larger than whether they adequately documented her various shortcomings, but the perception that they allowed this “deleterious workplace environment” (one of my past faves when it comes to lawyer-speak) to continue without comment or action.
She’s a canny and savvy media player and this situation is playing out in the court of public opinion, where, rightly or wrongly, she is coming across as a clear-cut victim of sexual harassment. Personally, I think its hooey and she’s working this thing for a big payday, but I also think she’ll prevail. This will never see the inside of a courtroom and Citi will pay her to go away.
I’m sure Citi has already run the numbers on what this would cost to litigate and how much shit they’ll take if they do, and then they’ll throw a number south of that in her direction and see if she bites.
davelj
June 14, 2010 @
11:06 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Dave: Having gone through more than one wrongful term/constructive discharge lawsuit during my corporate days, I agree with you 100%.
However, Citi’s problem is larger than whether they adequately documented her various shortcomings, but the perception that they allowed this “deleterious workplace environment” (one of my past faves when it comes to lawyer-speak) to continue without comment or action.
She’s a canny and savvy media player and this situation is playing out in the court of public opinion, where, rightly or wrongly, she is coming across as a clear-cut victim of sexual harassment. Personally, I think its hooey and she’s working this thing for a big payday, but I also think she’ll prevail. This will never see the inside of a courtroom and Citi will pay her to go away.
I’m sure Citi has already run the numbers on what this would cost to litigate and how much shit they’ll take if they do, and then they’ll throw a number south of that in her direction and see if she bites.[/quote]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.
briansd1
June 14, 2010 @
12:18 PM
davelj wrote:
Agreed. I bet [quote=davelj]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Sounds about right.
That’s $100k per year in New York. In the league that’s she’s trying to enter, that’s not a lot.
In the end, does she who ends up with the largest estate win? Or does she who enjoyed herself the most win?
briansd1 wrote:davelj [quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Sounds about right.
That’s $100k per year in New York. In the league that’s she’s trying to enter, that’s not a lot.
In the end, does she who ends up with the largest estate win? Or does she who enjoyed herself the most win?
I forgot where I read this – and it could’ve been wrong anyway – but my understanding is that she was making $65K-$70K. She may have been in the personal banking (or “private wealth management” as I believe it’s referred to these days) area of the bank, but I’m not sure how high-powered her actual position was.
Shadowfax
June 14, 2010 @
3:15 PM
More likely, she will end up More likely, she will end up with her own reality show. I think that is what she was really going after, not her full-time banking job.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 14, 2010 @
12:37 PM
davelj wrote:
Agreed. I bet [quote=davelj]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Dave: I remember a sexual harassment/sex discrimination case where the plaintiff’s attorney was saber rattling to the tune of $6MM. She threatened to depose our CEO (in London) and all of our senior Board members, promised a tortuous discovery process, and all sorts of other hellish consequences if we didn’t pony up the $6MM and now.
Our nuisance value threshold was $50K (minimum hours necessary for discovery and trial prep). So I offered her $50K as go-away money. Needless to say, she scoffed at that and told me that I just made a huge mistake (you know, the “rue the day” speech) and to watch out. Her case didn’t survive summary judgment.
This gal suing Citi is hopefully smart enough to recognize that she’ll probably only get one bite at that apple (settlement offer). Letting it litigate would be a mistake for both parties, but more so for her. She should also be concerned about the knock on effects, such as being black listed for this.
eavesdropper
June 15, 2010 @
6:18 AM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote: [quote=Allan from Fallbrook] This gal suing Citi is hopefully smart enough to recognize that she’ll probably only get one bite at that apple (settlement offer). Letting it litigate would be a mistake for both parties, but more so for her. She should also be concerned about the knock on effects, such as being black listed for this.[/quote]
Allan, I’m sure that her attorney spent a couple hours consulting with his client and informing her that blacklisting is against the law. He was able to bill those hours to “future income generation”.
Seriously, I’m with Shadowfax on this one: she’s shopping around for a reality show. She gets a starring role and instant fame (or, at the least, infamy), and the lawyer gets a producer’s credit. The public feels sympathy for Citi. Everybody wins.
I saw a bit of the news coverage where she’s complaining about how she was prevented from wearing “…turtlenecks, pencil skirts, fitted suits”. I’m thinking that the issue wasn’t the style as much as it was the size. When a woman has a size M upper body, and she squeezes her curves into an XXS (no matter how luscious those curves may be), it’s really not appropriate for work. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with form-fitting – I wore tailored clothing for work that flattered my feminine assets – but it shouldn’t be possible to clearly visualize your subdermal capillary pattern through your shirt.
That being said, at least her clothes were appropriate to her figure type, if not the workplace. When feminine assets turn into liabilities (as mine are), their owners need to get a reality check. Don’t get me started on coworkers who violate that particular guideline….
Allan from Fallbrook
June 15, 2010 @
9:41 AM
eavesdropper wrote:
I saw a [quote=eavesdropper]
I saw a bit of the news coverage where she’s complaining about how she was prevented from wearing “…turtlenecks, pencil skirts, fitted suits”. I’m thinking that the issue wasn’t the style as much as it was the size. When a woman has a size M upper body, and she squeezes her curves into an XXS (no matter how luscious those curves may be), it’s really not appropriate for work. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with form-fitting – I wore tailored clothing for work that flattered my feminine assets – but it shouldn’t be possible to clearly visualize your subdermal capillary pattern through your shirt.
[/quote]
Eavesdropper: I’m shocked, just shocked, at that mean, not to mention ageist and sexist comment. If she wants to wear those clothes (and I’m digging that whole pencil skirt thing), she should have the right. This is America! Haven’t you ever heard of Valley Forge and Gettysburg and D-Day? What have we been fighting for all these years? Jesus wept. For reals. You made God cry. And George Washington.
briansd1
June 15, 2010 @
10:04 AM
eavesdropper, her latest eavesdropper, her latest business dress as she walked into her new job at Chase looked fine to me.
Dressing like TV news anchors should be appropriate for business.
Did you notice that women’s clothing is always form fitted whereas men’s clothing is oversized?
I’m partial to fitted shirts myself, but it’s hard to find fitted shirts for men and the prices are always double or more.
I think that it looks ridiculous for men to wear shirts that have 10 extra inches of loose fabric at the waist.
Arraya
June 15, 2010 @
10:31 AM
An old girlfriend of mine had An old girlfriend of mine had a very similar situation. It was her first job out of college. I remember we went out shopping for new clothes for her. Admittedly, I *slightly* guided her choices to my likes. After 2 or 3 months, HR called her in and said that her clothes were “inappropriate”, which really was bullshit. She was just really attractive and obviously distracting. Just before this, her department head, the vice president of blah-blah-blah, a middle aged divorcee, was insinuating that she would be really good as his assistant. It was a position that payed like 50% more. Anyway, she toned it down and bit and his advances stopped. I suspect he was spoken to as well. A few months later she left and took a position at another company.
davelj
June 15, 2010 @
10:35 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I’m partial [quote=briansd1]
I’m partial to fitted shirts myself, but it’s hard to find fitted shirts for men and the prices are always double or more.
[/quote]
Likewise. I recommend Charles Tyrwhitt. Big selection of slim fit shits (and tailored fitted shirts if you want to take it a step further). And reasonably priced if you buy on sale (like right now). Adheres to one of my mottos: Think Yiddish, dress British.
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]
I saw a bit of the news coverage where she’s complaining about how she was prevented from wearing “…turtlenecks, pencil skirts, fitted suits”. I’m thinking that the issue wasn’t the style as much as it was the size. When a woman has a size M upper body, and she squeezes her curves into an XXS (no matter how luscious those curves may be), it’s really not appropriate for work. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with form-fitting – I wore tailored clothing for work that flattered my feminine assets – but it shouldn’t be possible to clearly visualize your subdermal capillary pattern through your shirt.
[/quote]
Eavesdropper: I’m shocked, just shocked, at that mean, not to mention ageist and sexist comment. If she wants to wear those clothes (and I’m digging that whole pencil skirt thing), she should have the right. This is America! Haven’t you ever heard of Valley Forge and Gettysburg and D-Day? What have we been fighting for all these years? Jesus wept. For reals. You made God cry. And George Washington.[/quote]
Allan, it’s now 4:45 am on June 16 in DC, and I’m just finishing up a day I started at 7:15 am on 6/15. In general, it kind of sucked large.
However, I elected to check in with Piggs before going to bed, and just read your response to my post. I feel much better now that I know I accomplished something on Tuesday.
Do you think that making God AND George Washington cry will earn me a guest spot on Glenn Beck?
Allan from Fallbrook
June 16, 2010 @
9:07 AM
eavesdropper wrote:
Do you [quote=eavesdropper]
Do you think that making God AND George Washington cry will earn me a guest spot on Glenn Beck?[/quote]
Eavesdropper: Beck, not so much. Rachel Maddow more probably. It would be interesting to see a panel composed of you, God and Glenn Beck, however. You could debate Washington’s Deism and Beck’s belief that he IS God.
You shouldn’t work so much, it can make you cranky.
eavesdropper
June 16, 2010 @
10:06 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]
Do you think that making God AND George Washington cry will earn me a guest spot on Glenn Beck?[/quote]
Eavesdropper: Beck, not so much. Rachel Maddow more probably. It would be interesting to see a panel composed of you, God and Glenn Beck, however. You could debate Washington’s Deism and Beck’s belief that he IS God.
You shouldn’t work so much, it can make you cranky.[/quote]
That is true, but it’s more likely these days that hormone imbalance trumps sleep deprivation in terms of altering my sparkling personality (You’re familiar with that salient observation, “I’m out of estrogen and I have a gun”. One of my faves. But I digress…)
When I get cranky, it just takes an encouraging word from my fellow Piggs. I’m thinking of having yours put on a bumper sticker: “Bitchy and intolerant enough to make even God and George Washington cry!”
I like your panel discussion lineup. Of course, it begs the question: If God is on the same panel as Glenn and I, how many sides of his blackboard will Glenn have to fill up to prove that he (Beck) is, indeed, God? The mere presence of God is certainly not adequate evidence to the contrary.
It promises to be a ratings-buster. However, I’ll agree to it only if there is another well-respected intellectual to fill the mental muscle void from Beck’s end of the panel. Would Sarah Palin – in a pencil skirt, natch – meet with your approval?
Allan from Fallbrook
June 16, 2010 @
9:54 PM
eavesdropper wrote:
When I [quote=eavesdropper]
When I get cranky, it just takes an encouraging word from my fellow Piggs. I’m thinking of having yours put on a bumper sticker: “Bitchy and intolerant enough to make even God and George Washington cry!”
I like your panel discussion lineup. Of course, it begs the question: If God is on the same panel as Glenn and I, how many sides of his blackboard will Glenn have to fill up to prove that he (Beck) is, indeed, God? The mere presence of God is certainly not adequate evidence to the contrary.
It promises to be a ratings-buster. However, I’ll agree to it only if there is another well-respected intellectual to fill the mental muscle void from Beck’s end of the panel. Would Sarah Palin – in a pencil skirt, natch – meet with your approval?[/quote]
Eavesdropper: My thoughts about Sarah Palin are completely inappropriate, and in a wide variety of different ways. If you feel capable enough to get that woman to articulate a semi-coherent thought and do so in even a slightly intelligible fashion, well, sister, you get my vote.
While I will credit Palin for being a wily operator (and smart enough to stay out of reach by avoiding political office), I also happen to think she’s what happens when the local PTA president becomes state governor. State governor of a territory that should be renamed “Gubment Largesse”.
Actually, if we’re debating Beck’s divinity, I’d like to pull in S.E. Cupp. That’s the total package to me: Smart, articulate, got the specs and a little hottie to boot. Plus, she’s a fallen Catholic who is now an atheist but just wrote a book decrying attacks on Christians. If that ain’t conflicted and angsty, I don’t know what is!
eavesdropper
June 17, 2010 @
1:12 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote: [quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Eavesdropper: My thoughts about Sarah Palin are completely inappropriate, and in a wide variety of different ways. If you feel capable enough to get that woman to articulate a semi-coherent thought and do so in even a slightly intelligible fashion, well, sister, you get my vote.[/quote]
Sorry, Allan. I’m not a young woman anymore, and not only do I feel incapable of getting Ms. Palin to that point, but I’m not sure I’ll live that long.
However, I find it frightening that her inability to articulate is a large part of her charm to her acolytes. I have to assume that they are unaware that what she’s saying makes absolutely no sense, or else they realize it, but simply don’t care. Neither assumption is comforting.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Actually, if we’re debating Beck’s divinity, I’d like to pull in S.E. Cupp. That’s the total package to me: Smart, articulate, got the specs and a little hottie to boot. Plus, she’s a fallen Catholic who is now an atheist but just wrote a book decrying attacks on Christians. If that ain’t conflicted and angsty, I don’t know what is![/quote]
Mmmm, I don’t know if I share your enthusiasm for S.E. Setting aside her physical appeal, which your “little hottie” statement would indicate is a factor in her favor (but the value of which I am unable to judge as a heterosexual female), I’m not overly impressed thus far. The pundit’s platform is just about the most lucrative in DC these days (at least, since Casino Jack Abramoff spoiled things for honest hardworking lobbyists everywhere), and I think she’s worked hard at creating a persona that will draw on Ann Coulter’s former devotees.
Admittedly, I don’t know a whole lot about her, and my media exposure has been limited. But I saw her interviewed last fall on C-SPAN’s Q&A, and was unimpressed. I don’t think it was a great interview for Brian Lamb (except for his exposure to Cupp’s “hottie”ness) because her response to just about every question seemed to be taken from a stock online bio. She didn’t elaborate or expand on any topic, and she would hurry through her responses as though she was nervous and wanted to change the subject. Considering that she consciously presents herself (and is presented by others) as a scholar, writer, and social and political commentator, what I came away with was someone who had what she felt to be the image of those things, but not the skills, knowledge, and experience (that being said, she’s got my okay for a seat on the “Glenn Beck Is God?” panel).
The thing that sealed it for me was the inaugural column she penned for Tucker Carlson’s “Daily Caller” several months back. By way of supposedly introducing herself, she had an imaginary exchange between herself and some poor unenlightened liberal slob. Cupp employed every stereotype in the book in illustrating her “date” as a pretentious, disingenuous, clueless loser who could not possibly aspire to the coolness of the hip, independent, fearless, rugged young conservative she was presenting herself as (a description also rife with stereotypes). Her column is titled S.E. Cupp’s Diary, and it reads precisely as such: a high school girl’s ramblings about how she imagines herself, and others who have slighted her.
She’s pretty, and she has a reasonably high IQ, but I don’t see much more than that. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing to back up the claims. And the one thing we don’t need, from EITHER side, is one more attractive young woman spouting out totally outrageous half-truths and stereotypes on television that do nothing but polarize Americans even more.
And I’ve somewhat caught up on my sleep, so I’m not being cranky.
Aecetia
June 17, 2010 @
2:09 PM
I have to agree with Allan on I have to agree with Allan on Palin’s communication skills. I was listening to her and multi-tasking, so I started just listening and I could not get to the heart of the matter on what she was saying about oil companies. I think she was trying to say you can’t trust them. You know, trust, but verify. Good grief. So just say it. I judge someone by could you take notes from them… no way she just circles around the topic and then around and around. For God’s sake start using the bullet points on your hand and quit pontificating. If I want pontificating I will listen to O’Reilly. Another thing, she could not point out a founder she liked over the other founders. So pick one. You cannot like them all. Go ahead and offend someone. That’s how it works. We all do not like the same things. I have not gone over to the dark side, unlike some of the opposition on this forum, I try to look for facts and not attribute evil characteristics to those I do not like and saintliness to those I do.
flu, that was really an obnoxious picture, but it is typical of what you see in those Walmart shopper e-mails that are sent around. The Euro. chic looks very staged, though. I am not offended, more like disgusted. I bet the fat chic is diabetic and on food stamps!
scaredyclassic
June 17, 2010 @
2:14 PM
I like braces. I also like I like braces. I also like expensive shirts. But there’s something to be said for new no-iron shirts.
I agree with all of the I agree with all of the above, walter, especially the people of walmart. You cannot look at it and drink coffee. Some of them come with warnings!
scaredyclassic
June 17, 2010 @
2:27 PM
you can look at 100 pictures, you can look at 100 pictures, think you’ve seen it all, think the joke is played out — and then you’ll get hit with an image that reduces you to a mass of hysterical jelly. yup. limit your beverages to chilled clear alcohol, nothing hot or staining while viewing
Coronita
June 15, 2010 @
6:59 AM
davelj][quote=Allan from [quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Citibank has nothing to worry, because the ultimate checkwriter is us, the taxpayers 🙂
As a virtual “shareholder” of Citibank, I vote to keep her employed there. We need more people like that @ Citibank if we ever want to see Citibank pay us back. Damn, maybe I should show up at work in spandex to see if it works for me.
eavesdropper
June 15, 2010 @
8:34 AM
flu][quote=davelj wrote:Allan [quote=flu][quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Citibank has nothing to worry, because the ultimate checkwriter is us, the taxpayers 🙂
As a virtual “shareholder” of Citibank, I vote to keep her employed there. We need more people like that @ Citibank if we ever want to see Citibank pay us back. Damn, maybe I should show up at work in spandex to see if it works for me.[/quote]
I don’t know, flu. I think you’ve come up with the idea a little too late. I’ve been working with people for years for refuse to shop in Ann Taylor, Talbots, and Brooks Brothers because they are not fashion-forward enough to carry spandex work clothing.
The result of this open-minded dress code is that I have a brain chock-full of some very disturbing images. Do I have grounds for a lawsuit? You know, that “deleterious workplace environment” mentioned earlier in this thread?
Allan from Fallbrook
June 15, 2010 @
9:38 AM
flu wrote: Damn, maybe I [quote=flu] Damn, maybe I should show up at work in spandex to see if it works for me.[/quote]
For some reason, I’m no longer hungry and I’m now afraid of clowns.
Coronita
June 15, 2010 @
10:57 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=flu] Damn, maybe I should show up at work in spandex to see if it works for me.[/quote]
For some reason, I’m no longer hungry and I’m now afraid of clowns.[/quote]
See, I’m already doing your health a favor…Who needs to go on special diets.
Ash Housewares
June 15, 2010 @
4:54 PM
If you’re slim AND tall you If you’re slim AND tall you look doubly ridiculous in off the shelf men’s clothing. Sleeves too short and a circus tent around your waist. The solution I’ve found is to have my shirts custom made by a tailor in Bangkok. There are tons of tailors to choose from. You send them your measurements and what you want (color, fabric, pattern, pockets, buttons etc), then you sit back and wait for your shirts in the mail. If you’re overwhelmed by the choices you can just send them cutouts from catalogs of things you like.
davelj
June 15, 2010 @
5:07 PM
Ash Housewares wrote:If [quote=Ash Housewares]If you’re slim AND tall you look doubly ridiculous in off the shelf men’s clothing. Sleeves too short and a circus tent around your waist. The solution I’ve found is to have my shirts custom made by a tailor in Bangkok. There are tons of tailors to choose from. You send them your measurements and what you want (color, fabric, pattern, pockets, buttons etc), then you sit back and wait for your shirts in the mail. If you’re overwhelmed by the choices you can just send them cutouts from catalogs of things you like.[/quote]
Astor & Black will send a very hot chick to your place to take your measurements (for what that’s worth; I think it’s a nice touch). Prices are not considerably more than you’d pay in Hong Kong or Bangkok. And it’s easier to get alterations if something’s not exactly right.
davelj wrote:Ash Housewares [quote=davelj][quote=Ash Housewares]If you’re slim AND tall you look doubly ridiculous in off the shelf men’s clothing. Sleeves too short and a circus tent around your waist. The solution I’ve found is to have my shirts custom made by a tailor in Bangkok. There are tons of tailors to choose from. You send them your measurements and what you want (color, fabric, pattern, pockets, buttons etc), then you sit back and wait for your shirts in the mail. If you’re overwhelmed by the choices you can just send them cutouts from catalogs of things you like.[/quote]
Astor & Black will send a very hot chick to your place to take your measurements (for what that’s worth; I think it’s a nice touch). Prices are not considerably more than you’d pay in Hong Kong or Bangkok. And it’s easier to get alterations if something’s not exactly right.
Dave: My cuz works for Tom James (www.tomjames.com) and they provide the same personalized service (coming to your office or home to fit you). They are definitely “American” style, in terms of design, but are very cost competitive.
I love Astor & Black, but, dude, they are PRICEY. Speaking of pricey, have you ever shopped Anderson & Sheppard out of London? They’re on Burlington Street on Savile Row. Be prepared for a second mortgage, but some of the best tailors in the world. Good stuff on Jermyn Street, too, like Russell & Hodge (shirt maker).
davelj
June 15, 2010 @
7:39 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=davelj][quote=Ash Housewares]If you’re slim AND tall you look doubly ridiculous in off the shelf men’s clothing. Sleeves too short and a circus tent around your waist. The solution I’ve found is to have my shirts custom made by a tailor in Bangkok. There are tons of tailors to choose from. You send them your measurements and what you want (color, fabric, pattern, pockets, buttons etc), then you sit back and wait for your shirts in the mail. If you’re overwhelmed by the choices you can just send them cutouts from catalogs of things you like.[/quote]
Astor & Black will send a very hot chick to your place to take your measurements (for what that’s worth; I think it’s a nice touch). Prices are not considerably more than you’d pay in Hong Kong or Bangkok. And it’s easier to get alterations if something’s not exactly right.
Dave: My cuz works for Tom James (www.tomjames.com) and they provide the same personalized service (coming to your office or home to fit you). They are definitely “American” style, in terms of design, but are very cost competitive.
I love Astor & Black, but, dude, they are PRICEY. Speaking of pricey, have you ever shopped Anderson & Sheppard out of London? They’re on Burlington Street on Savile Row. Be prepared for a second mortgage, but some of the best tailors in the world. Good stuff on Jermyn Street, too, like Russell & Hodge (shirt maker).[/quote]
I like the idea behind Tom James (the price is certainly right) but you’re right in that they focus on an American styling. I don’t find Astor & Black that expensive – generally about $800/suit for a typical Super 150, which is about the same as the Hemrajanis (up in Irvine). It’s all relative, of course. Most of the Saville Row tailors charge $5,000+. That’s a lot of dough for a suit in my book. If I can get something I really like for less than $1,000 I’m pretty happy. Also, I only own about 10 suits and only wear a suit maybe 3 times a month – but when I put one on I want it to fit properly (and last a LONG time). And off-the-rack suits fit me horribly even after substantial alterations. I’ve been to London twice this year and I always visit Jermyn Street and see things I like… but I end up inside Charles Tyrwhitt. Their slim fit shirts fit me without the need for alterations (and the price is right), and I’m lazy so I stick with ’em.
I don’t consider myself much of a clothes horse. But, again, it’s all relative. I used to work with a guy that wore Charvet shirts – $600 a pop minimum – and $2,000 handmade Italian shoes. Pure insanity. But it takes all kinds, I suppose.
paramount
June 15, 2010 @
9:16 PM
Need Pics!! Need Pics!!
NotCranky
June 15, 2010 @
9:22 PM
paramount wrote:Need [quote=paramount]Need Pics!![/quote]
Of Dave and Brian?
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?
Coronita
June 15, 2010 @
9:42 PM
Russell wrote:paramount [quote=Russell][quote=paramount]Need Pics!![/quote]
Of Dave and Brian?
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
No, of me in spandex….
Allan from Fallbrook
June 15, 2010 @
9:45 PM
flu wrote:Russell [quote=flu][quote=Russell][quote=paramount]Need Pics!![/quote]
Of Dave and Brian?
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
No, of me in spandex….[/quote]
FLU: Stop. It. Now.
Please. I’m going to bed soon and I’m terrified of my dreams.
NotCranky
June 15, 2010 @
10:00 PM
flu wrote:Russell [quote=flu][quote=Russell][quote=paramount]Need Pics!![/quote]
Of Dave and Brian?
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
No, of me in spandex….[/quote]
LOL
briansd1
June 16, 2010 @
8:18 AM
Russell wrote:
I don’t now [quote=Russell]
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
Metrosexuals wear Prada.
John Kennedy was the best. That was especially true in a time when Americans generally wore polyester and didn’t have ready access to affordable imported clothing.
Jackie remains the most elegant First Lady.
Michelle Obama is, well… colorful. Barbara Bush was matronly. Nancy Reagan was a wannabe.
Obama is the best all around — athletic, well-educated, thin, goodlooking and well-dressed.
Opps, was that a political threadjack?
Russell, my dad was an impeccable dresser. Still at 80 he wears a jacket to the doctor’s. Me, I’m just California casual.
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
Metrosexuals wear Prada.
John Kennedy was the best. That was especially true in a time when Americans generally wore polyester and didn’t have ready access to affordable imported clothing.
Jackie remains the most elegant First Lady.
Michelle Obama is, well… colorful. Barbara Bush was matronly. Nancy Reagan was a wannabe.
Obama is the best all around — athletic, well-educated, thin, goodlooking and well-dressed.
Opps, was that a political threadjack?
Russell, my dad was an impeccable dresser. Still at 80 he wears a jacket to the doctor’s. Me, I’m just California casual.[/quote]
I am always the last to catch on. I googled “Obama Metrosexual” and got a million pages. (Not so much for “Allan from Fallbrook Metrosexual though,AFX).
NotCranky
June 16, 2010 @
9:50 AM
Brian, I could never afford Brian, I could never afford these clothes you guys are talking about. I had an avantegarde/boy toy phase but mostly wear a blend between jock, redneck and hippie styles. When I am afraid of my pegue getting me in trouble though I put on my birth control shirts from the salvation army, old Izod with pastel horizontal stripes and stuff like that. Never laquered my nails yet. What do you guys do with the complimentary clear nail polish that comes with those duds?
BTW did you guys notice that the chick in photo with the pencil dress has her shoulder straps dropped? I bet she did that at business meetings.
Cuerpo de tentacion cara de repente, Dave.
briansd1
June 16, 2010 @
11:56 AM
Russell wrote:Brian, I could [quote=Russell]Brian, I could never afford these clothes you guys are talking about.[/quote]
Sure you can. That’s what a credit card is for.
How do you think people afford $800k houses and a Lexus and SUV on every driveway?
NotCranky
June 17, 2010 @
7:42 AM
briansd1 wrote:Russell [quote=briansd1][quote=Russell]Brian, I could never afford these clothes you guys are talking about.[/quote]
Sure you can. That’s what a credit card is for.
How do you think people afford $800k houses and a Lexus and SUV on every driveway?[/quote]
I always thought they were foreign policy perks.
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
Metrosexuals wear Prada.
John Kennedy was the best. That was especially true in a time when Americans generally wore polyester and didn’t have ready access to affordable imported clothing.
Jackie remains the most elegant First Lady.
Michelle Obama is, well… colorful. Barbara Bush was matronly. Nancy Reagan was a wannabe.
Obama is the best all around — athletic, well-educated, thin, goodlooking and well-dressed.
Opps, was that a political threadjack?
Russell, my dad was an impeccable dresser. Still at 80 he wears a jacket to the doctor’s. Me, I’m just California casual.[/quote]
Brian, have to take issue with you on this one. While most Americans in 1960 were not in a position to have spring and fall wardrobes custom-fitted in Paris, a la Jackie Kennedy, polyester and other synthetic “doubleknits” did not come into widespread wardrobe use until later in the sixties, whereupon it became enormously popular, particularly in the seventies (really disturbing mental picture: an endless sea of polyknit leisure suits in a variety of ice cream pastels, paired with color-coordinated nylon floral print shirts and – if you were a really snappy dresser – matching patent leather shoes).
Natural fibers (cotton, wool) were much more popular in the early 60s. Believe me, the hours I spent ironing 100% cotton shirts and blouses as one of my childhood chores, and the (pre-airconditioning) days spent in the classroom in my wool Catholic school uniform have sealed this fact in my memory . Garment manufacturing was still a significant industry in the US (remember the ILGWU labels), and clothing was constructed more skillfully. Fabric quality was much higher. And many American women sewed at least a portion of their wardrobe. Since we didn’t have inexpensive imports, it was a way to save significantly. By the 70s, cheap imports were flooding the US, and sewing became an expensive endeavor, in time and money.
Jackie Kennedy was a fashion icon, but she and her husband were criticized because she wore European designers almost exclusively. However, her style was copied worldwide, and she was, by far, the most significant influence on what was worn by young American women at that time. The costume designers of “Mad Men” are extremely accurate at reproducing the early 60s “dress ethic”: if you were a woman (anyone over 18 for the most part), you donned a suit, heels, gloves, hat, and handbag when you “went downtown” to have lunch with the girls, go shopping, visit the doctor, and other daily tasks (“Mad Men”‘s one extremely infrequent error: pantyhose. While schoolgirls wore tights, pantyhose for women were not available until about 1968. You wore sheer, seamless hose with garters attached to a girdle or belt.) And *everyone* – even very slender women – wore foundation garments: long-line bra (bullet cups, of course), very tight girdle (so that you wouldn’t “jiggle” and look indecent), and slip/petticoat.
I was a little girl during this era, but remember it well. While I am thankful that I can go antique shopping, or tour downtown DC in jeans and t-shirt, instead of armoring myself in layers of silk, cotton, and wool, I regret what seems to be a total elimination of elegance. If there was ever a time that people should be wearing MORE clothes, it’s now, when morbid obesity is at an all-time high. Sorry – I know I sound insensitive – but, please!! Get a three-way mirror, use it, and cover it up!!
Also, I can’t go along with your assessment of Nancy Reagan. I was never a fan of hers, but I feel compelled to opine that she wasn’t a poseur; she had genuine style. While she was not nearly as skilled as Jackie Kennedy in “bringing it off” with panache, she could hold her own in selecting clothing. Unfortunately, she was painfully thin – at times, she had an appearance that was almost anorectic – and could look like she was dressing up in her mother’s clothes.
briansd1
June 16, 2010 @
11:53 AM
eavesdropper wrote:
Brian, [quote=eavesdropper]
Brian, have to take issue with you on this one. While most Americans in 1960 were not in a position to have spring and fall wardrobes custom-fitted in Paris, a la Jackie Kennedy, polyester and other synthetic “doubleknits” did not come into widespread wardrobe use until later in the sixties, whereupon it became enormously popular, particularly in the seventies (really disturbing mental picture: an endless sea of polyknit leisure suits in a variety of ice cream pastels, paired with color-coordinated nylon floral print shirts and – if you were a really snappy dresser – matching patent leather shoes). [/quote]
I stand corrected. Thanks for an interesting summary 1960s fashion.
If I remember well, Nancy Reagan couldn’t afford her gowns so she borrowed them from her famous friends. Champagne taste on a beer budget. That was the beginning of the debt binge. 😉
eavesdropper
June 16, 2010 @
7:58 PM
briansd1 wrote: If I remember [quote=briansd1] If I remember well, Nancy Reagan couldn’t afford her gowns so she borrowed them from her famous friends. Champagne taste on a beer budget. That was the beginning of the debt binge. ;)[/quote]
It’s not surprising that Nancy couldn’t afford the clothes. The gowns she was wearing cost $7,500 to $10,000 each back in the early 80s. Can’t cover many of those on a government worker’s salary.
Nancy was nothing if not resourceful. While I don’t believe she borrowed clothes from friends (her tiny size, alone, would have deterred her from doing so), she certainly “borrowed” them from the designers, and often forgot to return them. She also was very skilled at raising money from friends, acquaintances, and her husband’s supporters that was used to pay for her expensive wardrobe, redecorating the White House, and even a $210,000 set of new china. None of the “contributors” seemed to take issue with her methods, and with how she spent the money, so I don’t either. She brought elegance back to Washington, and her actions were part of a much-needed morale boost to the nation.
Like I said, she wasn’t one of my favorite people, but I’ll give the lady her due. That being said, she came up short (no pin intended) in the Jackie Kennedy comparisons.
UCGal
June 16, 2010 @
1:15 PM
eavesdropper wrote:
Brian, [quote=eavesdropper]
Brian, have to take issue with you on this one. While most Americans in 1960 were not in a position to have spring and fall wardrobes custom-fitted in Paris, a la Jackie Kennedy, polyester and other synthetic “doubleknits” did not come into widespread wardrobe use until later in the sixties, whereupon it became enormously popular, particularly in the seventies (really disturbing mental picture: an endless sea of polyknit leisure suits in a variety of ice cream pastels, paired with color-coordinated nylon floral print shirts and – if you were a really snappy dresser – matching patent leather shoes).
[/quote]
Ah – the memories… having grown up in San Diego in the 60’s and 70’s… I remember high school boys wearing SUPER tight “angel flight” pants (100% polyester), pastel leisure suits, etc to school dances… Always with the big patch pockets with double stitching. And definitely the nylon floral shirts.
I also remember wearing a powder blue polyester double knit uniform when I worked at Seaworld in the late 70’s. It was totally horrid.
I do not miss those days.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 16, 2010 @
2:12 PM
UCGal wrote:
Ah – the [quote=UCGal]
Ah – the memories… having grown up in San Diego in the 60’s and 70’s… I remember high school boys wearing SUPER tight “angel flight” pants (100% polyester), pastel leisure suits, etc to school dances… Always with the big patch pockets with double stitching. And definitely the nylon floral shirts.
I do not miss those days.[/quote]
UCGal: Remember, “I live in Brittanias”? Brittania Jeans were Godawful, as were Gloria Vanderbilt (we called them “Gloria Vanderbutts”).
The 1970s were a nightmarish hell when it came to clothes, although the 1980s (Members Only jackets and leg warmers) weren’t far behind. The most common outfit in my teenage years was Levis, Lands End polo and Sperry Top Siders, pretty much what I wear now. Good style doesn’t change.
UCGal
June 16, 2010 @
3:07 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
UCGal: Remember, “I live in Brittanias”? Brittania Jeans were Godawful, as were Gloria Vanderbilt (we called them “Gloria Vanderbutts”).
[/quote]
Yep – the original “designer” jeans. But my crowd tended to wear levi 501 straight leg jeans… part of our rebellion. (boys and girls)
I also remember the “Feel the Fit” Dittos pants. Skintight. Ah, the 70’s. Dittos seemed to have been a west coast phenom, though. Friends back east never heard of them.
UCGal wrote:Remember, “I live [quote=UCGal]Remember, “I live in Brittanias”? Brittania Jeans were Godawful, as were Gloria Vanderbilt (we called them “Gloria Vanderbutts”).
. . . Yep – the original “designer” jeans. But my crowd tended to wear levi 501 straight leg jeans… part of our rebellion. (boys and girls)
I also remember the “Feel the Fit” Dittos pants. Skintight. Ah, the 70’s. Dittos seemed to have been a west coast phenom, though. Friends back east never heard of them.
UCGal, I too, wore levis 501’s and 505’s (boys b/c there were no girls levis back then). My sister and I used to slit open the outside seams from the knee down and sew in tie-dyed sheets to make them into big “bell bottoms.” Also sewed patches all over them and made tie-dyed halter tops to match. Then we wore boy’s lt. blue chambray shirts over it all, with yokes we “embroidered” ourselves. Used “Sun-In” to get two one-inch blond streaks on the sides of our faces – LOL. With our puka shells, feather earrings and turquoise rings, we were “stylin'”. . . Lol!!
omg, dittos . . . no back pockets – skin tight with a round seam over the butt or hash-marked hips. I had a both a teal and a purple pair, with matching see-thru plastic belts. This was the mid-seventies, I think. And I had a white rabbit fur/vinyl jacket with square silver chain-fasteners to wear with them and matching pull-on stretch white patent knee boots. Lol, lol, lol . . .
“Britannias” didn’t come out until I was in my twenties. They didn’t fit me right – were too short-waisted.
I’ve been looking recently on e-bay, etc., for my old round thick leather satchel bag, brown with painted flowers and heavy leather stitching, etc. Sure would like to have one again. [end of hijack]
eavesdropper
June 16, 2010 @
8:03 PM
bearishgurl wrote: My sister [quote=bearishgurl] My sister and I used to slit open the outside seams from the knee down and sew in tie-dyed sheets to make them into big “bell bottoms.” Also sewed patches all over them and made tie-dyed halter tops to match. Then we wore boy’s lt. blue chambray shirts over it all, with yokes we “embroidered” ourselves. Used “Sun-In” to get two one-inch blond streaks on the sides of our faces – LOL. With our puka shells, feather earrings and turquoise rings, we were “stylin'”. . . Lol!!
omg, dittos . . . no back pockets – skin tight with a round seam over the butt or hash-marked hips. I had a both a teal and a purple pair, with matching see-thru plastic belts. This was the mid-seventies, I think. And I had a white rabbit fur/vinyl jacket with square silver chain-fasteners to wear with them and matching pull-on stretch white patent knee boots….. [end of hijack][/quote]
bearishgurl, keep hijacking! I’m loving your color commentary on 70s fashion trends. You, too, UCGal. Priceless!!
bearishgurl
June 16, 2010 @
11:07 PM
eavesdropper wrote:. . . [quote=eavesdropper]. . . polyester and other synthetic “doubleknits” did not come into widespread wardrobe use until later in the sixties, whereupon it became enormously popular, particularly in the seventies (really disturbing mental picture: an endless sea of polyknit leisure suits in a variety of ice cream pastels, paired with color-coordinated nylon floral print shirts and – if you were a really snappy dresser – matching patent leather shoes). . . [/quote]
Just saw this post, eavesdropper, and . . . it’s priceless . . . !
My ex-spouse used to have two “Angel Flight” polyester flare pants, 1 black and 1 brown, that he wore whenever we’d go out at night, ANYWHERE. They were the male equivalent of “Dittos” – LOL! With the blk. pr., he used to wear a black poly satin vest, sometimes with a tie and no shirt and with the brn. pr., he wore a tan and silver shiny nylon button-front long-sleeved “body-shirt” with a giant human eye on the back with really long lashes. To complete the look, he wore short black patent boots. Even as late as ’85, he kept wanting to don these same clothes to go out, until I bought him a ventless jacket and “luxury” levis to go with it and hid the Angel Flights. He looked like a mafioso in the new duds :{
eavesdropper
June 17, 2010 @
10:23 AM
bearishgurl [quote=bearishgurl][quote=eavesdropper]. . . polyester and other synthetic “doubleknits” did not come into widespread wardrobe use until later in the sixties, whereupon it became enormously popular, particularly in the seventies (really disturbing mental picture: an endless sea of polyknit leisure suits in a variety of ice cream pastels, paired with color-coordinated nylon floral print shirts and – if you were a really snappy dresser – matching patent leather shoes). . . [/quote]
Just saw this post, eavesdropper, and . . . it’s priceless . . . !
My ex-spouse used to have two “Angel Flight” polyester flare pants, 1 black and 1 brown, that he wore whenever we’d go out at night, ANYWHERE. They were the male equivalent of “Dittos” – LOL! With the blk. pr., he used to wear a black poly satin vest, sometimes with a tie and no shirt and with the brn. pr., he wore a tan and silver shiny nylon button-front long-sleeved “body-shirt” with a giant human eye on the back with really long lashes. To complete the look, he wore short black patent boots. Even as late as ’85, he kept wanting to don these same clothes to go out, until I bought him a ventless jacket and “luxury” levis to go with it and hid the Angel Flights. He looked like a mafioso in the new duds :{[/quote]
Have they let him out of prison yet? Holy shit! I mean, you reach a point where you cross over from basic bad taste to where it becomes a 100% disability.
I think that it was highly irresponsible and self-centered of you to divorce this guy, and let him loose on the rest of the population. Please give me some advance notice if he ever plans a trip to DC. We’re already saturated with bad taste. Although you can get away with wearing just about anything as long as you’re sporting an American flag lapel pin.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 15, 2010 @
9:38 PM
Dave: Have you visited The Dave: Have you visited The Hound Clothiers in San Francisco? Its on Sutter in FiDi and it sounds like they’d be right up your alley. When I was with Willis, our SF office was at 50 California, and I always made a point of visiting them when I was in town.
Most of my Tom James suits are in the $800 range, but I love shirts and braces from London. I don’t know if you’re a brace guy (versus a belt guy), but I haven’t done the belt thing since my 20s. Albert Thurston braces are my personal favorite, along with Thomas Pink seven fold ties.
Speaking of ties: Tom James has some nice handmade seven folds that are very reasonably priced.
Shadowfax
June 15, 2010 @
10:19 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: Have you visited The Hound Clothiers in San Francisco? Its on Sutter in FiDi and it sounds like they’d be right up your alley. When I was with Willis, our SF office was at 50 California, and I always made a point of visiting them when I was in town.
Most of my Tom James suits are in the $800 range, but I love shirts and braces from London. I don’t know if you’re a brace guy (versus a belt guy), but I haven’t done the belt thing since my 20s. Albert Thurston braces are my personal favorite, along with Thomas Pink seven fold ties.
Speaking of ties: Tom James has some nice handmade seven folds that are very reasonably priced.[/quote]
Wow, AFF, never had you pegged as a metro, what with the Raiders thing and all, but I guess it kinda makes sense?[img_assist|nid=13461|title=braces|desc=AFF…is that you?|link=none|align=left|width=269|height=510]
afx114
June 15, 2010 @
11:14 PM
If everyone would just look, If everyone would just look, dress, drink, and act like the cast of Mad Men, this world would be a wonderful place.
svelte
September 24, 2011 @
1:25 PM
Yes, a company should be able Yes, a company should be able to enforce a dress code for employees on the clock, absolutely. If they choose a dress code that makes their employees took like Menonites, well that is their choice.
Of course, I as a customer should also be free to chose where I do business. And I choose to do business with open minded companies. 🙂
davelj
June 16, 2010 @
9:28 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: Have you visited The Hound Clothiers in San Francisco? Its on Sutter in FiDi and it sounds like they’d be right up your alley. When I was with Willis, our SF office was at 50 California, and I always made a point of visiting them when I was in town.
Most of my Tom James suits are in the $800 range, but I love shirts and braces from London. I don’t know if you’re a brace guy (versus a belt guy), but I haven’t done the belt thing since my 20s. Albert Thurston braces are my personal favorite, along with Thomas Pink seven fold ties.
Speaking of ties: Tom James has some nice handmade seven folds that are very reasonably priced.[/quote]
I’ve heard of the Hound Clothiers in SF but never been there. I’m not up in the bay area a whole lot. But I will check it out. Regarding the $800 Tom James suits, that’s the thing about all of the folks who essentially make “bespoke suits for the masses” (Astor, Hemrajani, James, etc. etc.)… you see the “special” price, but you never get out for less than a few hundred above it… I still haven’t figured out why. I’m not a braces guy – I’m a belt guy. I think braces look silly on short folks and I’m 5’8″. Taller dudes can get away with them. Me loves the seven fold tie… but they can be very expensive.
briansd1
June 15, 2010 @
5:39 PM
Ash Housewares wrote: If [quote=Ash Housewares] If you’re slim AND tall you look doubly ridiculous in off the shelf men’s clothing. Sleeves too short and a circus tent around your waist. The solution I’ve found is to have my shirts custom made by a tailor in Bangkok. There are tons of tailors to choose from. You send them your measurements and what you want [/quote]
Bangkok is a great city for shopping. Value for the money wise, it’s the best place on earth.
I don’t want to spend too much money on my wardrobe so I get my clothing off the rack. But I do buy fitted shirts and flat-front pants.
CDMA ENG
June 18, 2010 @
3:11 PM
flu][quote=davelj wrote:Allan [quote=flu][quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Citibank has nothing to worry, because the ultimate checkwriter is us, the taxpayers 🙂
As a virtual “shareholder” of Citibank, I vote to keep her employed there. We need more people like that @ Citibank if we ever want to see Citibank pay us back. Damn, maybe I should show up at work in spandex to see if it works for me.[/quote]
Check writer FLU? No. Your a partial employer and as such she is expected to render services. Not the type that might get you a beating from your wife but at least the house vacuumed and then you can judge for yourself.
CE
poorgradstudent
June 15, 2010 @
4:54 PM
On the subject of women’s On the subject of women’s business attire: My understanding is that in most of the world, a skirt is generally viewed as more professoinal than pants for a woman to wear. Low heels (although NOT stillettos) are also sort of expected.
I’m not against it, I’m just confused why a skirt, which reveals a lot more, is somehow “more professional”. Then again, I’m also confused why a necktie is “professional”, as it’s mostly silly and honestly a parody of very old timey clothes.
NotCranky
June 15, 2010 @
5:04 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:On the [quote=poorgradstudent]On the subject of women’s business attire: My understanding is that in most of the world, a skirt is generally viewed as more professoinal than pants for a woman to wear. Low heels (although NOT stillettos) are also sort of expected.
I’m not against it, I’m just confused why a skirt, which reveals a lot more, is somehow “more professional”. Then again, I’m also confused why a necktie is “professional”, as it’s mostly silly and honestly a parody of very old timey clothes.[/quote]
I always thought that the tie indicates compliance and membership at the same time. It serves as a noose that you can show you are willing to put around our neck in submission and as a designator that you are indeed a poobah amongst poobahs.
Hobie
June 16, 2010 @
9:51 AM
…I think this thread is …I think this thread is devolving into, “Too Much Information”
NotCranky
June 16, 2010 @
10:10 AM
Hobie wrote:…I think this [quote=Hobie]…I think this thread is devolving into, “Too Much Information”[/quote]
It is a deeply philosophical discussion using fashion as a vehicle. So, tell us about yourself.
CBad
June 16, 2010 @
1:44 PM
Hobie wrote:…I think this [quote=Hobie]…I think this thread is devolving into, “Too Much Information”[/quote]
Agreed. Especially this bit:
[quote=davelj]
Likewise. I recommend Charles Tyrwhitt. Big selection of slim fit shits [/quote]
davelj
June 16, 2010 @
2:21 PM
CBad wrote:Hobie wrote:…I [quote=CBad][quote=Hobie]…I think this thread is devolving into, “Too Much Information”[/quote]
Agreed. Especially this bit:
[quote=davelj]
Likewise. I recommend Charles Tyrwhitt. Big selection of slim fit shits [/quote][/quote]
The man noted, “it’s hard to find fitted shirts for men and the prices are always double or more.” I apologize profusely for being so helpful.
CBad
June 16, 2010 @
2:44 PM
Um, ok, apparently you aren’t Um, ok, apparently you aren’t getting the joke?
afx114
June 16, 2010 @
2:46 PM
I hate it when my shits get I hate it when my shits get bunched up in my armpits.
davelj
June 16, 2010 @
2:58 PM
afx114 wrote:I hate it when [quote=afx114]I hate it when my shits get bunched up in my armpits.[/quote]
Bwahahahaha… I didn’t notice my poor spelling!! That’s funny…
Coronita
June 16, 2010 @
10:08 AM
I love being an enginerd. I I love being an enginerd. I have exactly 2 suits.
Coronita
June 16, 2010 @
8:23 PM
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I came across this awhile ago.
I know…I know…kinda crass. Sorry, my piggington lady friends if this post is offensive. I know I know, not everyone in the US. is like pictured on the right.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 16, 2010 @
9:55 PM
FLU: First the spandex and FLU: First the spandex and now this? Thanks, Chief, you’re aces!
eavesdropper
June 17, 2010 @
10:07 AM
flu wrote:Sorry, I couldn’t [quote=flu]Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I came across this awhile ago.
I know…I know…kinda crass. Sorry, my piggington lady friends if this post is offensive. I know I know, not everyone in the US. is like pictured on the right.[/quote]
Hey, flu, the question of whether I am a lady is arguable, but the only thing that offends me about the picture is that it reminds me of what a disturbingly common sight it is in America these days. What I DO want to know is how you got a picture of my (ex) sister-in-law.
Yes, there’s that arguable question of whether I’m nice, too. Well, perhaps not so arguable…
June 12, 2010 @ 10:35 PM
I got a good laugh from
I got a good laugh from Shadowfax’s comment from another thread so rather than threadjacking, I’m posting here.
[quote=Shadowfax]
Is this like having women wear burkas because men can’t control themselves around women if they’re not wearing full body sheets for clothing?[/quote]
This made me think of the woman who got fired for wearing form-fitted clothing.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/74987/fired-being-too-hot-woman.html
http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-citibank-too-sexy-fired,0,7546037.story
I don’t think that form-fitted clothing should be banned but if were, it should be banned for every woman equally.
Besides, what is form-fitting? Less than x inches of air between the skin and clothing?
I’ve been to many banks and I believe that certain people should indeed be banned from wearing form fitted clothing, but not Debrahlee.
June 13, 2010 @ 9:55 AM
I would think that a bank so
I would think that a bank so short of “assets” would want to keep the ones it has.
June 13, 2010 @ 10:24 AM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:I
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I would think that a bank so short of “assets” would want to keep the ones it has.[/quote]
Very nice. The only part about this that bothers me just a tad (from the article):
***********
“The reality is, I’m a size 32 DD. I’m very skinny, and then I have curves. So, of course, on my body, the turtleneck is going to make it more noticeable. But I’m not showing cleavage. We wear jackets.”
She said a co-worker who shopped with her and bought the same styles and designer brands never got in trouble.
“I said, ‘You are discriminating to me, because of my body type’,” she said. “This is genetic. What am I supposed to do?”
************
After the fact, it’s been revealed (no pun intended) that Ms. Lorenzana not only has breast implants but was featured in a TV promotion for them (back in the early naughties). Now I have zero problem with this at all – in fact, quite the contrary, I admire Ms. Lorenzana’s desire for enhancements. But… to suggest that it’s all “genetic” and “what am I supposed to do” is silly.
My preference would be for her to just stand up and say, “Hey, I’m hot. And I have breast implants. And I like attracting the attention of men. And I like wearing really tight clothing that plenty of other women at this company wear. So, if you want to apply a certain dress code to all of the women here, then so be it. But don’t single me out because I’m, like, totally hot and, like, my male co-workers have problems controlling their peckers’ subconscious urges.”
June 13, 2010 @ 2:36 PM
davelj wrote:Allan from
[quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I would think that a bank so short of “assets” would want to keep the ones it has.[/quote]
Very nice. The only part about this that bothers me just a tad (from the article):
***********
“The reality is, I’m a size 32 DD. I’m very skinny, and then I have curves. So, of course, on my body, the turtleneck is going to make it more noticeable. But I’m not showing cleavage. We wear jackets.”
She said a co-worker who shopped with her and bought the same styles and designer brands never got in trouble.
“I said, ‘You are discriminating to me, because of my body type’,” she said. “This is genetic. What am I supposed to do?”
************
After the fact, it’s been revealed (no pun intended) that Ms. Lorenzana not only has breast implants but was featured in a TV promotion for them (back in the early naughties). Now I have zero problem with this at all – in fact, quite the contrary, I admire Ms. Lorenzana’s desire for enhancements. But… to suggest that it’s all “genetic” and “what am I supposed to do” is silly.
My preference would be for her to just stand up and say, “Hey, I’m hot. And I have breast implants. And I like attracting the attention of men. And I like wearing really tight clothing that plenty of other women at this company wear. So, if you want to apply a certain dress code to all of the women here, then so be it. But don’t single me out because I’m, like, totally hot and, like, my male co-workers have problems controlling their peckers’ subconscious urges.”[/quote]
In amateur anthroplogical terms this woman is a full time calienta huevos. I guarantee there are many subtle and not so subtle gestures that get around with he titilating “impossible to hide” assets. She probably strategically puts everything from her red painted finger nails to the office stapler in her mouth and bites them much more than average women do at work. Guarantee she is flirting like crazy while trying to hide it and each poor bastard it happens to thinks he is the only one and he might just hit the jack pot.When none of them get it but are totally fixated on the calienta huevos, you got major dysfunction. This is a huge human resources failure. If you are going to let a calienta huevos work in your bank you have to make sure the dorks realize that they should contain their fantasies of women to internet porn during working hours so that they can be fired with no law suits.
June 13, 2010 @ 2:43 PM
That’s pretty funny. Yeah,
That’s pretty funny. Yeah, definite HR failure.
But muy caliente…
June 13, 2010 @ 4:49 PM
Russell wrote:
In amateur
[quote=Russell]
In amateur anthroplogical terms this woman is a full time calienta huevos. [/quote]
Perhaps she’s a “tease” (in gringo terms)… but I’m not sure if that’s the full story. In the promotional video for breast implants (yes, I watched part of it… inquiring minds and all…), she made it quite clear that she was getting implants because she wanted “to attract a handsome wealthy guy like Ben Affleck” and felt implants would help in that pursuit. So, in that same vein, assuming she was flirting in the office at all, it may have been more about actually finding a (successful) mate and less about just being a tease. (It might be difficult to distinguish between the two.) Of course, who knows… I just hope this stays in the news for a while.
June 14, 2010 @ 9:53 AM
davelj wrote: I just hope
[quote=davelj] I just hope this stays in the news for a while.[/quote]
Me too. I just love how she says “turtleneck” with a slight Spanish accent. It’s sounds so cute.
June 13, 2010 @ 10:25 AM
Typically, overweight women
Typically, overweight women should be banned from wearing lycra shorts to work, while Hooters would encourage it’s “right-sized” workers to wear as much as possible. I guess it depends on the “corporate culture.” Maybe the Taliban has a point–avoid the slippery slope argument and just have everyone wear a full-body, loose fitting sheet! Hm, I’m kinda understanding the logic now….
PS–this is a totally OT, fully thread and I don’t think anyone would care if it’s jacked….
Should we talk about interest rates or derivatives now?
June 13, 2010 @ 11:00 AM
Shadowfax wrote: Maybe the
[quote=Shadowfax] Maybe the Taliban has a point–avoid the slippery slope argument and just have everyone wear a full-body, loose fitting sheet! Hm, I’m kinda understanding the logic now….
[/quote]
I’m kinda understanding the Taliban logic now also.
FWIW, the burqa isn’t the same as the other outfits. I have the different outfit names confused. I believe that in Egypt or Dubai some women have gotten in trouble for not being conservative enough and wearing “sexy” form-fitting and colorful religious-attire.
June 13, 2010 @ 11:24 AM
Shadowfax wrote:
Should we
[quote=Shadowfax]
Should we talk about interest rates or derivatives now?[/quote]
Shadowfax: I don’t know if you’ve read Das’ “Traders, Guns and Money” yet, but I highly recommend it. I re-read it recently (during the run-up to FinReg) to refresh my memory on derivatives and it remains one of the best books for the layman on the subject. Its written in a very fast-paced, narrative style and isn’t dense or heavy. It will also scare the ever-lovin’ bejesus out of you. Seriously.
June 13, 2010 @ 11:32 AM
This thread is useless
This thread is useless without pics.
June 13, 2010 @ 11:51 AM
afx114 wrote:This thread is
[quote=afx114]This thread is useless without pics.[/quote]
Well, impaired at least. I think I used to know how to post pics… but I’ve forgotten along the way.
June 13, 2010 @ 11:52 AM
this is only happening
this is only happening because obama is so sexy. wait. is that starting a political slap-fest? I retract! I recant!
June 13, 2010 @ 12:15 PM
afx114 wrote:This thread is
[quote=afx114]This thread is useless without pics.[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCniFrfJ4vg
Enjoy… 🙂
June 13, 2010 @ 1:46 PM
ralphfurley wrote:afx114
[quote=ralphfurley][quote=afx114]This thread is useless without pics.[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCniFrfJ4vg
Enjoy… :)[/quote]
Lame video..
June 13, 2010 @ 11:59 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Shadowfax]
Should we talk about interest rates or derivatives now?[/quote]
Shadowfax: I don’t know if you’ve read Das’ “Traders, Guns and Money” yet, but I highly recommend it. I re-read it recently (during the run-up to FinReg) to refresh my memory on derivatives and it remains one of the best books for the layman on the subject. Its written in a very fast-paced, narrative style and isn’t dense or heavy. It will also scare the ever-lovin’ bejesus out of you. Seriously.[/quote]
Nice attempted-jack, AFF. But I am here to keep it fluffy…
[img_assist|nid=13442|title=now THAT’s a burqa!|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=262|height=306]
June 13, 2010 @ 12:19 PM
Shadowfax wrote:
Should we
[quote=Shadowfax]
Should we talk about interest rates or derivatives now?
Nice attempted-jack, AFF. But I am here to keep it fluffy…
[/quote]
Shadowfax: So my responding to your threadjack is, in itself, a threadjack? Sheesh.
Nice getaway sticks on that woman, though.
June 13, 2010 @ 12:22 PM
Wasn’t a completed “jack,”
Wasn’t a completed “jack,” just an attempted one… I kept us on-topic. Can’t let you go running off to debate something serious on this particular topic…
June 13, 2010 @ 7:40 PM
Here’s the thing… from the
Here’s the thing… from the interviews with that woman, it doesn’t exactly sound like she has a pleasant personality. “I’m hot, all my female co-workers are fat” isn’t exactly going to Win Friends and Influence People. On top of that, she clearly had a personality conflict with her immediate supervisor.
I’m not saying we know the facts of the case. There’s a lot of he said-she said here. Basically, she’s trying to frame it as a case of wrongful termination, as opposed to just simple insubordination.
June 14, 2010 @ 9:45 AM
poorgradstudent wrote:Here’s
[quote=poorgradstudent]Here’s the thing… from the interviews with that woman, it doesn’t exactly sound like she has a pleasant personality. “I’m hot, all my female co-workers are fat” isn’t exactly going to Win Friends and Influence People. On top of that, she clearly had a personality conflict with her immediate supervisor.
I’m not saying we know the facts of the case. There’s a lot of he said-she said here. Basically, she’s trying to frame it as a case of wrongful termination, as opposed to just simple insubordination.[/quote]
If Citi papered her file with “real” issues of incompetence (that is, not related to tight sweaters and short skirts), then maybe they’ll get out of this one easily. But if they have nothing in the files… they’re going to be settling this one for a big pile of dough. Firing folks efficiently is more about good record keeping than anything else.
June 14, 2010 @ 10:04 AM
davelj wrote:poorgradstudent
[quote=davelj][quote=poorgradstudent]Here’s the thing… from the interviews with that woman, it doesn’t exactly sound like she has a pleasant personality. “I’m hot, all my female co-workers are fat” isn’t exactly going to Win Friends and Influence People. On top of that, she clearly had a personality conflict with her immediate supervisor.
I’m not saying we know the facts of the case. There’s a lot of he said-she said here. Basically, she’s trying to frame it as a case of wrongful termination, as opposed to just simple insubordination.[/quote]
If Citi papered her file with “real” issues of incompetence (that is, not related to tight sweaters and short skirts), then maybe they’ll get out of this one easily. But if they have nothing in the files… they’re going to be settling this one for a big pile of dough. Firing folks efficiently is more about good record keeping than anything else.[/quote]
Dave: Having gone through more than one wrongful term/constructive discharge lawsuit during my corporate days, I agree with you 100%.
However, Citi’s problem is larger than whether they adequately documented her various shortcomings, but the perception that they allowed this “deleterious workplace environment” (one of my past faves when it comes to lawyer-speak) to continue without comment or action.
She’s a canny and savvy media player and this situation is playing out in the court of public opinion, where, rightly or wrongly, she is coming across as a clear-cut victim of sexual harassment. Personally, I think its hooey and she’s working this thing for a big payday, but I also think she’ll prevail. This will never see the inside of a courtroom and Citi will pay her to go away.
I’m sure Citi has already run the numbers on what this would cost to litigate and how much shit they’ll take if they do, and then they’ll throw a number south of that in her direction and see if she bites.
June 14, 2010 @ 11:06 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Dave: Having gone through more than one wrongful term/constructive discharge lawsuit during my corporate days, I agree with you 100%.
However, Citi’s problem is larger than whether they adequately documented her various shortcomings, but the perception that they allowed this “deleterious workplace environment” (one of my past faves when it comes to lawyer-speak) to continue without comment or action.
She’s a canny and savvy media player and this situation is playing out in the court of public opinion, where, rightly or wrongly, she is coming across as a clear-cut victim of sexual harassment. Personally, I think its hooey and she’s working this thing for a big payday, but I also think she’ll prevail. This will never see the inside of a courtroom and Citi will pay her to go away.
I’m sure Citi has already run the numbers on what this would cost to litigate and how much shit they’ll take if they do, and then they’ll throw a number south of that in her direction and see if she bites.[/quote]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.
June 14, 2010 @ 12:18 PM
davelj wrote:
Agreed. I bet
[quote=davelj]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Sounds about right.
That’s $100k per year in New York. In the league that’s she’s trying to enter, that’s not a lot.
In the end, does she who ends up with the largest estate win? Or does she who enjoyed herself the most win?
She’s looking pretty good these days. I’m sure that her banking customers like her and that she will open plenty of new accounts. Isn’t that what productivity is all about?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/too_sexy_banker_mum_on_video_ScEC7dfAbvLjcVvv2hsRWP
June 14, 2010 @ 1:15 PM
briansd1 wrote:davelj
[quote=briansd1][quote=davelj]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Sounds about right.
That’s $100k per year in New York. In the league that’s she’s trying to enter, that’s not a lot.
In the end, does she who ends up with the largest estate win? Or does she who enjoyed herself the most win?
She’s looking pretty good these days. I’m sure that her banking customers like her and that she will open plenty of new accounts. Isn’t that what productivity is all about?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/too_sexy_banker_mum_on_video_ScEC7dfAbvLjcVvv2hsRWP%5B/quote%5D
I forgot where I read this – and it could’ve been wrong anyway – but my understanding is that she was making $65K-$70K. She may have been in the personal banking (or “private wealth management” as I believe it’s referred to these days) area of the bank, but I’m not sure how high-powered her actual position was.
June 14, 2010 @ 3:15 PM
More likely, she will end up
More likely, she will end up with her own reality show. I think that is what she was really going after, not her full-time banking job.
June 14, 2010 @ 12:37 PM
davelj wrote:
Agreed. I bet
[quote=davelj]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Dave: I remember a sexual harassment/sex discrimination case where the plaintiff’s attorney was saber rattling to the tune of $6MM. She threatened to depose our CEO (in London) and all of our senior Board members, promised a tortuous discovery process, and all sorts of other hellish consequences if we didn’t pony up the $6MM and now.
Our nuisance value threshold was $50K (minimum hours necessary for discovery and trial prep). So I offered her $50K as go-away money. Needless to say, she scoffed at that and told me that I just made a huge mistake (you know, the “rue the day” speech) and to watch out. Her case didn’t survive summary judgment.
This gal suing Citi is hopefully smart enough to recognize that she’ll probably only get one bite at that apple (settlement offer). Letting it litigate would be a mistake for both parties, but more so for her. She should also be concerned about the knock on effects, such as being black listed for this.
June 15, 2010 @ 6:18 AM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] This gal suing Citi is hopefully smart enough to recognize that she’ll probably only get one bite at that apple (settlement offer). Letting it litigate would be a mistake for both parties, but more so for her. She should also be concerned about the knock on effects, such as being black listed for this.[/quote]
Allan, I’m sure that her attorney spent a couple hours consulting with his client and informing her that blacklisting is against the law. He was able to bill those hours to “future income generation”.
Seriously, I’m with Shadowfax on this one: she’s shopping around for a reality show. She gets a starring role and instant fame (or, at the least, infamy), and the lawyer gets a producer’s credit. The public feels sympathy for Citi. Everybody wins.
I saw a bit of the news coverage where she’s complaining about how she was prevented from wearing “…turtlenecks, pencil skirts, fitted suits”. I’m thinking that the issue wasn’t the style as much as it was the size. When a woman has a size M upper body, and she squeezes her curves into an XXS (no matter how luscious those curves may be), it’s really not appropriate for work. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with form-fitting – I wore tailored clothing for work that flattered my feminine assets – but it shouldn’t be possible to clearly visualize your subdermal capillary pattern through your shirt.
That being said, at least her clothes were appropriate to her figure type, if not the workplace. When feminine assets turn into liabilities (as mine are), their owners need to get a reality check. Don’t get me started on coworkers who violate that particular guideline….
June 15, 2010 @ 9:41 AM
eavesdropper wrote:
I saw a
[quote=eavesdropper]
I saw a bit of the news coverage where she’s complaining about how she was prevented from wearing “…turtlenecks, pencil skirts, fitted suits”. I’m thinking that the issue wasn’t the style as much as it was the size. When a woman has a size M upper body, and she squeezes her curves into an XXS (no matter how luscious those curves may be), it’s really not appropriate for work. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with form-fitting – I wore tailored clothing for work that flattered my feminine assets – but it shouldn’t be possible to clearly visualize your subdermal capillary pattern through your shirt.
[/quote]
Eavesdropper: I’m shocked, just shocked, at that mean, not to mention ageist and sexist comment. If she wants to wear those clothes (and I’m digging that whole pencil skirt thing), she should have the right. This is America! Haven’t you ever heard of Valley Forge and Gettysburg and D-Day? What have we been fighting for all these years? Jesus wept. For reals. You made God cry. And George Washington.
June 15, 2010 @ 10:04 AM
eavesdropper, her latest
eavesdropper, her latest business dress as she walked into her new job at Chase looked fine to me.
Dressing like TV news anchors should be appropriate for business.
Did you notice that women’s clothing is always form fitted whereas men’s clothing is oversized?
I’m partial to fitted shirts myself, but it’s hard to find fitted shirts for men and the prices are always double or more.
I think that it looks ridiculous for men to wear shirts that have 10 extra inches of loose fabric at the waist.
June 15, 2010 @ 10:31 AM
An old girlfriend of mine had
An old girlfriend of mine had a very similar situation. It was her first job out of college. I remember we went out shopping for new clothes for her. Admittedly, I *slightly* guided her choices to my likes. After 2 or 3 months, HR called her in and said that her clothes were “inappropriate”, which really was bullshit. She was just really attractive and obviously distracting. Just before this, her department head, the vice president of blah-blah-blah, a middle aged divorcee, was insinuating that she would be really good as his assistant. It was a position that payed like 50% more. Anyway, she toned it down and bit and his advances stopped. I suspect he was spoken to as well. A few months later she left and took a position at another company.
June 15, 2010 @ 10:35 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I’m partial
[quote=briansd1]
I’m partial to fitted shirts myself, but it’s hard to find fitted shirts for men and the prices are always double or more.
[/quote]
Likewise. I recommend Charles Tyrwhitt. Big selection of slim fit shits (and tailored fitted shirts if you want to take it a step further). And reasonably priced if you buy on sale (like right now). Adheres to one of my mottos: Think Yiddish, dress British.
http://www.ctshirts.com/ym-gbpdefault/yr-yd-Men%27s-Shirts—-Formal/yg-Slim-Fit-Shirts/productlisting.aspx?ppp=47&sortBy=Relevance&page=1&back=False&canned=&browse=Y
June 15, 2010 @ 5:08 PM
davelj wrote: Adheres to one
[quote=davelj] Adheres to one of my mottos: Think Yiddish, dress British.
http://www.ctshirts.com/ym-gbpdefault/yr-yd-Men%27s-Shirts—-Formal/yg-Slim-Fit-Shirts/productlisting.aspx?ppp=47&sortBy=Relevance&page=1&back=False&canned=&browse=Y
[/quote]
Great motto. I’ll be sure to live by it.
June 16, 2010 @ 1:36 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]
I saw a bit of the news coverage where she’s complaining about how she was prevented from wearing “…turtlenecks, pencil skirts, fitted suits”. I’m thinking that the issue wasn’t the style as much as it was the size. When a woman has a size M upper body, and she squeezes her curves into an XXS (no matter how luscious those curves may be), it’s really not appropriate for work. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with form-fitting – I wore tailored clothing for work that flattered my feminine assets – but it shouldn’t be possible to clearly visualize your subdermal capillary pattern through your shirt.
[/quote]
Eavesdropper: I’m shocked, just shocked, at that mean, not to mention ageist and sexist comment. If she wants to wear those clothes (and I’m digging that whole pencil skirt thing), she should have the right. This is America! Haven’t you ever heard of Valley Forge and Gettysburg and D-Day? What have we been fighting for all these years? Jesus wept. For reals. You made God cry. And George Washington.[/quote]
Allan, it’s now 4:45 am on June 16 in DC, and I’m just finishing up a day I started at 7:15 am on 6/15. In general, it kind of sucked large.
However, I elected to check in with Piggs before going to bed, and just read your response to my post. I feel much better now that I know I accomplished something on Tuesday.
Do you think that making God AND George Washington cry will earn me a guest spot on Glenn Beck?
June 16, 2010 @ 9:07 AM
eavesdropper wrote:
Do you
[quote=eavesdropper]
Do you think that making God AND George Washington cry will earn me a guest spot on Glenn Beck?[/quote]
Eavesdropper: Beck, not so much. Rachel Maddow more probably. It would be interesting to see a panel composed of you, God and Glenn Beck, however. You could debate Washington’s Deism and Beck’s belief that he IS God.
You shouldn’t work so much, it can make you cranky.
June 16, 2010 @ 10:06 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]
Do you think that making God AND George Washington cry will earn me a guest spot on Glenn Beck?[/quote]
Eavesdropper: Beck, not so much. Rachel Maddow more probably. It would be interesting to see a panel composed of you, God and Glenn Beck, however. You could debate Washington’s Deism and Beck’s belief that he IS God.
You shouldn’t work so much, it can make you cranky.[/quote]
That is true, but it’s more likely these days that hormone imbalance trumps sleep deprivation in terms of altering my sparkling personality (You’re familiar with that salient observation, “I’m out of estrogen and I have a gun”. One of my faves. But I digress…)
When I get cranky, it just takes an encouraging word from my fellow Piggs. I’m thinking of having yours put on a bumper sticker: “Bitchy and intolerant enough to make even God and George Washington cry!”
I like your panel discussion lineup. Of course, it begs the question: If God is on the same panel as Glenn and I, how many sides of his blackboard will Glenn have to fill up to prove that he (Beck) is, indeed, God? The mere presence of God is certainly not adequate evidence to the contrary.
It promises to be a ratings-buster. However, I’ll agree to it only if there is another well-respected intellectual to fill the mental muscle void from Beck’s end of the panel. Would Sarah Palin – in a pencil skirt, natch – meet with your approval?
June 16, 2010 @ 9:54 PM
eavesdropper wrote:
When I
[quote=eavesdropper]
When I get cranky, it just takes an encouraging word from my fellow Piggs. I’m thinking of having yours put on a bumper sticker: “Bitchy and intolerant enough to make even God and George Washington cry!”
I like your panel discussion lineup. Of course, it begs the question: If God is on the same panel as Glenn and I, how many sides of his blackboard will Glenn have to fill up to prove that he (Beck) is, indeed, God? The mere presence of God is certainly not adequate evidence to the contrary.
It promises to be a ratings-buster. However, I’ll agree to it only if there is another well-respected intellectual to fill the mental muscle void from Beck’s end of the panel. Would Sarah Palin – in a pencil skirt, natch – meet with your approval?[/quote]
Eavesdropper: My thoughts about Sarah Palin are completely inappropriate, and in a wide variety of different ways. If you feel capable enough to get that woman to articulate a semi-coherent thought and do so in even a slightly intelligible fashion, well, sister, you get my vote.
While I will credit Palin for being a wily operator (and smart enough to stay out of reach by avoiding political office), I also happen to think she’s what happens when the local PTA president becomes state governor. State governor of a territory that should be renamed “Gubment Largesse”.
Actually, if we’re debating Beck’s divinity, I’d like to pull in S.E. Cupp. That’s the total package to me: Smart, articulate, got the specs and a little hottie to boot. Plus, she’s a fallen Catholic who is now an atheist but just wrote a book decrying attacks on Christians. If that ain’t conflicted and angsty, I don’t know what is!
June 17, 2010 @ 1:12 PM
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Eavesdropper: My thoughts about Sarah Palin are completely inappropriate, and in a wide variety of different ways. If you feel capable enough to get that woman to articulate a semi-coherent thought and do so in even a slightly intelligible fashion, well, sister, you get my vote.[/quote]
Sorry, Allan. I’m not a young woman anymore, and not only do I feel incapable of getting Ms. Palin to that point, but I’m not sure I’ll live that long.
However, I find it frightening that her inability to articulate is a large part of her charm to her acolytes. I have to assume that they are unaware that what she’s saying makes absolutely no sense, or else they realize it, but simply don’t care. Neither assumption is comforting.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Actually, if we’re debating Beck’s divinity, I’d like to pull in S.E. Cupp. That’s the total package to me: Smart, articulate, got the specs and a little hottie to boot. Plus, she’s a fallen Catholic who is now an atheist but just wrote a book decrying attacks on Christians. If that ain’t conflicted and angsty, I don’t know what is![/quote]
Mmmm, I don’t know if I share your enthusiasm for S.E. Setting aside her physical appeal, which your “little hottie” statement would indicate is a factor in her favor (but the value of which I am unable to judge as a heterosexual female), I’m not overly impressed thus far. The pundit’s platform is just about the most lucrative in DC these days (at least, since Casino Jack Abramoff spoiled things for honest hardworking lobbyists everywhere), and I think she’s worked hard at creating a persona that will draw on Ann Coulter’s former devotees.
Admittedly, I don’t know a whole lot about her, and my media exposure has been limited. But I saw her interviewed last fall on C-SPAN’s Q&A, and was unimpressed. I don’t think it was a great interview for Brian Lamb (except for his exposure to Cupp’s “hottie”ness) because her response to just about every question seemed to be taken from a stock online bio. She didn’t elaborate or expand on any topic, and she would hurry through her responses as though she was nervous and wanted to change the subject. Considering that she consciously presents herself (and is presented by others) as a scholar, writer, and social and political commentator, what I came away with was someone who had what she felt to be the image of those things, but not the skills, knowledge, and experience (that being said, she’s got my okay for a seat on the “Glenn Beck Is God?” panel).
The thing that sealed it for me was the inaugural column she penned for Tucker Carlson’s “Daily Caller” several months back. By way of supposedly introducing herself, she had an imaginary exchange between herself and some poor unenlightened liberal slob. Cupp employed every stereotype in the book in illustrating her “date” as a pretentious, disingenuous, clueless loser who could not possibly aspire to the coolness of the hip, independent, fearless, rugged young conservative she was presenting herself as (a description also rife with stereotypes). Her column is titled S.E. Cupp’s Diary, and it reads precisely as such: a high school girl’s ramblings about how she imagines herself, and others who have slighted her.
She’s pretty, and she has a reasonably high IQ, but I don’t see much more than that. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing to back up the claims. And the one thing we don’t need, from EITHER side, is one more attractive young woman spouting out totally outrageous half-truths and stereotypes on television that do nothing but polarize Americans even more.
And I’ve somewhat caught up on my sleep, so I’m not being cranky.
June 17, 2010 @ 2:09 PM
I have to agree with Allan on
I have to agree with Allan on Palin’s communication skills. I was listening to her and multi-tasking, so I started just listening and I could not get to the heart of the matter on what she was saying about oil companies. I think she was trying to say you can’t trust them. You know, trust, but verify. Good grief. So just say it. I judge someone by could you take notes from them… no way she just circles around the topic and then around and around. For God’s sake start using the bullet points on your hand and quit pontificating. If I want pontificating I will listen to O’Reilly. Another thing, she could not point out a founder she liked over the other founders. So pick one. You cannot like them all. Go ahead and offend someone. That’s how it works. We all do not like the same things. I have not gone over to the dark side, unlike some of the opposition on this forum, I try to look for facts and not attribute evil characteristics to those I do not like and saintliness to those I do.
flu, that was really an obnoxious picture, but it is typical of what you see in those Walmart shopper e-mails that are sent around. The Euro. chic looks very staged, though. I am not offended, more like disgusted. I bet the fat chic is diabetic and on food stamps!
June 17, 2010 @ 2:14 PM
I like braces. I also like
I like braces. I also like expensive shirts. But there’s something to be said for new no-iron shirts.
and http://www.peopleofwalmart.com can make me cry with laughter, particularly the mean-spirited comments…
June 17, 2010 @ 2:16 PM
I agree with all of the
I agree with all of the above, walter, especially the people of walmart. You cannot look at it and drink coffee. Some of them come with warnings!
June 17, 2010 @ 2:27 PM
you can look at 100 pictures,
you can look at 100 pictures, think you’ve seen it all, think the joke is played out — and then you’ll get hit with an image that reduces you to a mass of hysterical jelly. yup. limit your beverages to chilled clear alcohol, nothing hot or staining while viewing
June 15, 2010 @ 6:59 AM
davelj][quote=Allan from
[quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Citibank has nothing to worry, because the ultimate checkwriter is us, the taxpayers 🙂
As a virtual “shareholder” of Citibank, I vote to keep her employed there. We need more people like that @ Citibank if we ever want to see Citibank pay us back. Damn, maybe I should show up at work in spandex to see if it works for me.
June 15, 2010 @ 8:34 AM
flu][quote=davelj wrote:Allan
[quote=flu][quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Citibank has nothing to worry, because the ultimate checkwriter is us, the taxpayers 🙂
As a virtual “shareholder” of Citibank, I vote to keep her employed there. We need more people like that @ Citibank if we ever want to see Citibank pay us back. Damn, maybe I should show up at work in spandex to see if it works for me.[/quote]
I don’t know, flu. I think you’ve come up with the idea a little too late. I’ve been working with people for years for refuse to shop in Ann Taylor, Talbots, and Brooks Brothers because they are not fashion-forward enough to carry spandex work clothing.
The result of this open-minded dress code is that I have a brain chock-full of some very disturbing images. Do I have grounds for a lawsuit? You know, that “deleterious workplace environment” mentioned earlier in this thread?
June 15, 2010 @ 9:38 AM
flu wrote: Damn, maybe I
[quote=flu] Damn, maybe I should show up at work in spandex to see if it works for me.[/quote]
For some reason, I’m no longer hungry and I’m now afraid of clowns.
June 15, 2010 @ 10:57 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=flu] Damn, maybe I should show up at work in spandex to see if it works for me.[/quote]
For some reason, I’m no longer hungry and I’m now afraid of clowns.[/quote]
See, I’m already doing your health a favor…Who needs to go on special diets.
June 15, 2010 @ 4:54 PM
If you’re slim AND tall you
If you’re slim AND tall you look doubly ridiculous in off the shelf men’s clothing. Sleeves too short and a circus tent around your waist. The solution I’ve found is to have my shirts custom made by a tailor in Bangkok. There are tons of tailors to choose from. You send them your measurements and what you want (color, fabric, pattern, pockets, buttons etc), then you sit back and wait for your shirts in the mail. If you’re overwhelmed by the choices you can just send them cutouts from catalogs of things you like.
June 15, 2010 @ 5:07 PM
Ash Housewares wrote:If
[quote=Ash Housewares]If you’re slim AND tall you look doubly ridiculous in off the shelf men’s clothing. Sleeves too short and a circus tent around your waist. The solution I’ve found is to have my shirts custom made by a tailor in Bangkok. There are tons of tailors to choose from. You send them your measurements and what you want (color, fabric, pattern, pockets, buttons etc), then you sit back and wait for your shirts in the mail. If you’re overwhelmed by the choices you can just send them cutouts from catalogs of things you like.[/quote]
Astor & Black will send a very hot chick to your place to take your measurements (for what that’s worth; I think it’s a nice touch). Prices are not considerably more than you’d pay in Hong Kong or Bangkok. And it’s easier to get alterations if something’s not exactly right.
http://www.astorandblack.com/
June 15, 2010 @ 6:32 PM
davelj wrote:Ash Housewares
[quote=davelj][quote=Ash Housewares]If you’re slim AND tall you look doubly ridiculous in off the shelf men’s clothing. Sleeves too short and a circus tent around your waist. The solution I’ve found is to have my shirts custom made by a tailor in Bangkok. There are tons of tailors to choose from. You send them your measurements and what you want (color, fabric, pattern, pockets, buttons etc), then you sit back and wait for your shirts in the mail. If you’re overwhelmed by the choices you can just send them cutouts from catalogs of things you like.[/quote]
Astor & Black will send a very hot chick to your place to take your measurements (for what that’s worth; I think it’s a nice touch). Prices are not considerably more than you’d pay in Hong Kong or Bangkok. And it’s easier to get alterations if something’s not exactly right.
http://www.astorandblack.com/%5B/quote%5D
Dave: My cuz works for Tom James (www.tomjames.com) and they provide the same personalized service (coming to your office or home to fit you). They are definitely “American” style, in terms of design, but are very cost competitive.
I love Astor & Black, but, dude, they are PRICEY. Speaking of pricey, have you ever shopped Anderson & Sheppard out of London? They’re on Burlington Street on Savile Row. Be prepared for a second mortgage, but some of the best tailors in the world. Good stuff on Jermyn Street, too, like Russell & Hodge (shirt maker).
June 15, 2010 @ 7:39 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=davelj][quote=Ash Housewares]If you’re slim AND tall you look doubly ridiculous in off the shelf men’s clothing. Sleeves too short and a circus tent around your waist. The solution I’ve found is to have my shirts custom made by a tailor in Bangkok. There are tons of tailors to choose from. You send them your measurements and what you want (color, fabric, pattern, pockets, buttons etc), then you sit back and wait for your shirts in the mail. If you’re overwhelmed by the choices you can just send them cutouts from catalogs of things you like.[/quote]
Astor & Black will send a very hot chick to your place to take your measurements (for what that’s worth; I think it’s a nice touch). Prices are not considerably more than you’d pay in Hong Kong or Bangkok. And it’s easier to get alterations if something’s not exactly right.
http://www.astorandblack.com/%5B/quote%5D
Dave: My cuz works for Tom James (www.tomjames.com) and they provide the same personalized service (coming to your office or home to fit you). They are definitely “American” style, in terms of design, but are very cost competitive.
I love Astor & Black, but, dude, they are PRICEY. Speaking of pricey, have you ever shopped Anderson & Sheppard out of London? They’re on Burlington Street on Savile Row. Be prepared for a second mortgage, but some of the best tailors in the world. Good stuff on Jermyn Street, too, like Russell & Hodge (shirt maker).[/quote]
I like the idea behind Tom James (the price is certainly right) but you’re right in that they focus on an American styling. I don’t find Astor & Black that expensive – generally about $800/suit for a typical Super 150, which is about the same as the Hemrajanis (up in Irvine). It’s all relative, of course. Most of the Saville Row tailors charge $5,000+. That’s a lot of dough for a suit in my book. If I can get something I really like for less than $1,000 I’m pretty happy. Also, I only own about 10 suits and only wear a suit maybe 3 times a month – but when I put one on I want it to fit properly (and last a LONG time). And off-the-rack suits fit me horribly even after substantial alterations. I’ve been to London twice this year and I always visit Jermyn Street and see things I like… but I end up inside Charles Tyrwhitt. Their slim fit shirts fit me without the need for alterations (and the price is right), and I’m lazy so I stick with ’em.
I don’t consider myself much of a clothes horse. But, again, it’s all relative. I used to work with a guy that wore Charvet shirts – $600 a pop minimum – and $2,000 handmade Italian shoes. Pure insanity. But it takes all kinds, I suppose.
June 15, 2010 @ 9:16 PM
Need Pics!!
Need Pics!!
June 15, 2010 @ 9:22 PM
paramount wrote:Need
[quote=paramount]Need Pics!![/quote]
Of Dave and Brian?
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?
June 15, 2010 @ 9:42 PM
Russell wrote:paramount
[quote=Russell][quote=paramount]Need Pics!![/quote]
Of Dave and Brian?
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
No, of me in spandex….
June 15, 2010 @ 9:45 PM
flu wrote:Russell
[quote=flu][quote=Russell][quote=paramount]Need Pics!![/quote]
Of Dave and Brian?
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
No, of me in spandex….[/quote]
FLU: Stop. It. Now.
Please. I’m going to bed soon and I’m terrified of my dreams.
June 15, 2010 @ 10:00 PM
flu wrote:Russell
[quote=flu][quote=Russell][quote=paramount]Need Pics!![/quote]
Of Dave and Brian?
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
No, of me in spandex….[/quote]
LOL
June 16, 2010 @ 8:18 AM
Russell wrote:
I don’t now
[quote=Russell]
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
Metrosexuals wear Prada.
John Kennedy was the best. That was especially true in a time when Americans generally wore polyester and didn’t have ready access to affordable imported clothing.
Jackie remains the most elegant First Lady.
Michelle Obama is, well… colorful. Barbara Bush was matronly. Nancy Reagan was a wannabe.
Obama is the best all around — athletic, well-educated, thin, goodlooking and well-dressed.
Opps, was that a political threadjack?
Russell, my dad was an impeccable dresser. Still at 80 he wears a jacket to the doctor’s. Me, I’m just California casual.
June 16, 2010 @ 9:38 AM
briansd1 wrote:Russell
[quote=briansd1][quote=Russell]
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
Metrosexuals wear Prada.
John Kennedy was the best. That was especially true in a time when Americans generally wore polyester and didn’t have ready access to affordable imported clothing.
Jackie remains the most elegant First Lady.
Michelle Obama is, well… colorful. Barbara Bush was matronly. Nancy Reagan was a wannabe.
Obama is the best all around — athletic, well-educated, thin, goodlooking and well-dressed.
Opps, was that a political threadjack?
Russell, my dad was an impeccable dresser. Still at 80 he wears a jacket to the doctor’s. Me, I’m just California casual.[/quote]
I am always the last to catch on. I googled “Obama Metrosexual” and got a million pages. (Not so much for “Allan from Fallbrook Metrosexual though,AFX).
June 16, 2010 @ 9:50 AM
Brian, I could never afford
Brian, I could never afford these clothes you guys are talking about. I had an avantegarde/boy toy phase but mostly wear a blend between jock, redneck and hippie styles. When I am afraid of my pegue getting me in trouble though I put on my birth control shirts from the salvation army, old Izod with pastel horizontal stripes and stuff like that. Never laquered my nails yet. What do you guys do with the complimentary clear nail polish that comes with those duds?
BTW did you guys notice that the chick in photo with the pencil dress has her shoulder straps dropped? I bet she did that at business meetings.
Cuerpo de tentacion cara de repente, Dave.
June 16, 2010 @ 11:56 AM
Russell wrote:Brian, I could
[quote=Russell]Brian, I could never afford these clothes you guys are talking about.[/quote]
Sure you can. That’s what a credit card is for.
How do you think people afford $800k houses and a Lexus and SUV on every driveway?
June 17, 2010 @ 7:42 AM
briansd1 wrote:Russell
[quote=briansd1][quote=Russell]Brian, I could never afford these clothes you guys are talking about.[/quote]
Sure you can. That’s what a credit card is for.
How do you think people afford $800k houses and a Lexus and SUV on every driveway?[/quote]
I always thought they were foreign policy perks.
June 16, 2010 @ 11:03 AM
briansd1 wrote:Russell
[quote=briansd1][quote=Russell]
I don’t now why but this shift in topic to fancy clothes for thin guys, has me wondering if Obama is the first metrosexual president?[/quote]
Metrosexuals wear Prada.
John Kennedy was the best. That was especially true in a time when Americans generally wore polyester and didn’t have ready access to affordable imported clothing.
Jackie remains the most elegant First Lady.
Michelle Obama is, well… colorful. Barbara Bush was matronly. Nancy Reagan was a wannabe.
Obama is the best all around — athletic, well-educated, thin, goodlooking and well-dressed.
Opps, was that a political threadjack?
Russell, my dad was an impeccable dresser. Still at 80 he wears a jacket to the doctor’s. Me, I’m just California casual.[/quote]
Brian, have to take issue with you on this one. While most Americans in 1960 were not in a position to have spring and fall wardrobes custom-fitted in Paris, a la Jackie Kennedy, polyester and other synthetic “doubleknits” did not come into widespread wardrobe use until later in the sixties, whereupon it became enormously popular, particularly in the seventies (really disturbing mental picture: an endless sea of polyknit leisure suits in a variety of ice cream pastels, paired with color-coordinated nylon floral print shirts and – if you were a really snappy dresser – matching patent leather shoes).
Natural fibers (cotton, wool) were much more popular in the early 60s. Believe me, the hours I spent ironing 100% cotton shirts and blouses as one of my childhood chores, and the (pre-airconditioning) days spent in the classroom in my wool Catholic school uniform have sealed this fact in my memory . Garment manufacturing was still a significant industry in the US (remember the ILGWU labels), and clothing was constructed more skillfully. Fabric quality was much higher. And many American women sewed at least a portion of their wardrobe. Since we didn’t have inexpensive imports, it was a way to save significantly. By the 70s, cheap imports were flooding the US, and sewing became an expensive endeavor, in time and money.
Jackie Kennedy was a fashion icon, but she and her husband were criticized because she wore European designers almost exclusively. However, her style was copied worldwide, and she was, by far, the most significant influence on what was worn by young American women at that time. The costume designers of “Mad Men” are extremely accurate at reproducing the early 60s “dress ethic”: if you were a woman (anyone over 18 for the most part), you donned a suit, heels, gloves, hat, and handbag when you “went downtown” to have lunch with the girls, go shopping, visit the doctor, and other daily tasks (“Mad Men”‘s one extremely infrequent error: pantyhose. While schoolgirls wore tights, pantyhose for women were not available until about 1968. You wore sheer, seamless hose with garters attached to a girdle or belt.) And *everyone* – even very slender women – wore foundation garments: long-line bra (bullet cups, of course), very tight girdle (so that you wouldn’t “jiggle” and look indecent), and slip/petticoat.
I was a little girl during this era, but remember it well. While I am thankful that I can go antique shopping, or tour downtown DC in jeans and t-shirt, instead of armoring myself in layers of silk, cotton, and wool, I regret what seems to be a total elimination of elegance. If there was ever a time that people should be wearing MORE clothes, it’s now, when morbid obesity is at an all-time high. Sorry – I know I sound insensitive – but, please!! Get a three-way mirror, use it, and cover it up!!
Also, I can’t go along with your assessment of Nancy Reagan. I was never a fan of hers, but I feel compelled to opine that she wasn’t a poseur; she had genuine style. While she was not nearly as skilled as Jackie Kennedy in “bringing it off” with panache, she could hold her own in selecting clothing. Unfortunately, she was painfully thin – at times, she had an appearance that was almost anorectic – and could look like she was dressing up in her mother’s clothes.
June 16, 2010 @ 11:53 AM
eavesdropper wrote:
Brian,
[quote=eavesdropper]
Brian, have to take issue with you on this one. While most Americans in 1960 were not in a position to have spring and fall wardrobes custom-fitted in Paris, a la Jackie Kennedy, polyester and other synthetic “doubleknits” did not come into widespread wardrobe use until later in the sixties, whereupon it became enormously popular, particularly in the seventies (really disturbing mental picture: an endless sea of polyknit leisure suits in a variety of ice cream pastels, paired with color-coordinated nylon floral print shirts and – if you were a really snappy dresser – matching patent leather shoes). [/quote]
I stand corrected. Thanks for an interesting summary 1960s fashion.
If I remember well, Nancy Reagan couldn’t afford her gowns so she borrowed them from her famous friends. Champagne taste on a beer budget. That was the beginning of the debt binge. 😉
June 16, 2010 @ 7:58 PM
briansd1 wrote: If I remember
[quote=briansd1] If I remember well, Nancy Reagan couldn’t afford her gowns so she borrowed them from her famous friends. Champagne taste on a beer budget. That was the beginning of the debt binge. ;)[/quote]
It’s not surprising that Nancy couldn’t afford the clothes. The gowns she was wearing cost $7,500 to $10,000 each back in the early 80s. Can’t cover many of those on a government worker’s salary.
Nancy was nothing if not resourceful. While I don’t believe she borrowed clothes from friends (her tiny size, alone, would have deterred her from doing so), she certainly “borrowed” them from the designers, and often forgot to return them. She also was very skilled at raising money from friends, acquaintances, and her husband’s supporters that was used to pay for her expensive wardrobe, redecorating the White House, and even a $210,000 set of new china. None of the “contributors” seemed to take issue with her methods, and with how she spent the money, so I don’t either. She brought elegance back to Washington, and her actions were part of a much-needed morale boost to the nation.
Like I said, she wasn’t one of my favorite people, but I’ll give the lady her due. That being said, she came up short (no pin intended) in the Jackie Kennedy comparisons.
June 16, 2010 @ 1:15 PM
eavesdropper wrote:
Brian,
[quote=eavesdropper]
Brian, have to take issue with you on this one. While most Americans in 1960 were not in a position to have spring and fall wardrobes custom-fitted in Paris, a la Jackie Kennedy, polyester and other synthetic “doubleknits” did not come into widespread wardrobe use until later in the sixties, whereupon it became enormously popular, particularly in the seventies (really disturbing mental picture: an endless sea of polyknit leisure suits in a variety of ice cream pastels, paired with color-coordinated nylon floral print shirts and – if you were a really snappy dresser – matching patent leather shoes).
[/quote]
Ah – the memories… having grown up in San Diego in the 60’s and 70’s… I remember high school boys wearing SUPER tight “angel flight” pants (100% polyester), pastel leisure suits, etc to school dances… Always with the big patch pockets with double stitching. And definitely the nylon floral shirts.
I also remember wearing a powder blue polyester double knit uniform when I worked at Seaworld in the late 70’s. It was totally horrid.
I do not miss those days.
June 16, 2010 @ 2:12 PM
UCGal wrote:
Ah – the
[quote=UCGal]
Ah – the memories… having grown up in San Diego in the 60’s and 70’s… I remember high school boys wearing SUPER tight “angel flight” pants (100% polyester), pastel leisure suits, etc to school dances… Always with the big patch pockets with double stitching. And definitely the nylon floral shirts.
I do not miss those days.[/quote]
UCGal: Remember, “I live in Brittanias”? Brittania Jeans were Godawful, as were Gloria Vanderbilt (we called them “Gloria Vanderbutts”).
The 1970s were a nightmarish hell when it came to clothes, although the 1980s (Members Only jackets and leg warmers) weren’t far behind. The most common outfit in my teenage years was Levis, Lands End polo and Sperry Top Siders, pretty much what I wear now. Good style doesn’t change.
June 16, 2010 @ 3:07 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
UCGal: Remember, “I live in Brittanias”? Brittania Jeans were Godawful, as were Gloria Vanderbilt (we called them “Gloria Vanderbutts”).
[/quote]
Yep – the original “designer” jeans. But my crowd tended to wear levi 501 straight leg jeans… part of our rebellion. (boys and girls)
I also remember the “Feel the Fit” Dittos pants. Skintight. Ah, the 70’s. Dittos seemed to have been a west coast phenom, though. Friends back east never heard of them.
http://www.dittopress.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/BqW1NiIh6ow03df7wIbPIBDJo1_500.jpg
June 16, 2010 @ 3:53 PM
UCGal wrote:Remember, “I live
[quote=UCGal]Remember, “I live in Brittanias”? Brittania Jeans were Godawful, as were Gloria Vanderbilt (we called them “Gloria Vanderbutts”).
. . . Yep – the original “designer” jeans. But my crowd tended to wear levi 501 straight leg jeans… part of our rebellion. (boys and girls)
I also remember the “Feel the Fit” Dittos pants. Skintight. Ah, the 70’s. Dittos seemed to have been a west coast phenom, though. Friends back east never heard of them.
http://www.dittopress.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/BqW1NiIh6ow03df7wIbPIBDJo1_500.jpg
[/quote]
UCGal, I too, wore levis 501’s and 505’s (boys b/c there were no girls levis back then). My sister and I used to slit open the outside seams from the knee down and sew in tie-dyed sheets to make them into big “bell bottoms.” Also sewed patches all over them and made tie-dyed halter tops to match. Then we wore boy’s lt. blue chambray shirts over it all, with yokes we “embroidered” ourselves. Used “Sun-In” to get two one-inch blond streaks on the sides of our faces – LOL. With our puka shells, feather earrings and turquoise rings, we were “stylin'”. . . Lol!!
omg, dittos . . . no back pockets – skin tight with a round seam over the butt or hash-marked hips. I had a both a teal and a purple pair, with matching see-thru plastic belts. This was the mid-seventies, I think. And I had a white rabbit fur/vinyl jacket with square silver chain-fasteners to wear with them and matching pull-on stretch white patent knee boots. Lol, lol, lol . . .
“Britannias” didn’t come out until I was in my twenties. They didn’t fit me right – were too short-waisted.
I’ve been looking recently on e-bay, etc., for my old round thick leather satchel bag, brown with painted flowers and heavy leather stitching, etc. Sure would like to have one again. [end of hijack]
June 16, 2010 @ 8:03 PM
bearishgurl wrote: My sister
[quote=bearishgurl] My sister and I used to slit open the outside seams from the knee down and sew in tie-dyed sheets to make them into big “bell bottoms.” Also sewed patches all over them and made tie-dyed halter tops to match. Then we wore boy’s lt. blue chambray shirts over it all, with yokes we “embroidered” ourselves. Used “Sun-In” to get two one-inch blond streaks on the sides of our faces – LOL. With our puka shells, feather earrings and turquoise rings, we were “stylin'”. . . Lol!!
omg, dittos . . . no back pockets – skin tight with a round seam over the butt or hash-marked hips. I had a both a teal and a purple pair, with matching see-thru plastic belts. This was the mid-seventies, I think. And I had a white rabbit fur/vinyl jacket with square silver chain-fasteners to wear with them and matching pull-on stretch white patent knee boots….. [end of hijack][/quote]
bearishgurl, keep hijacking! I’m loving your color commentary on 70s fashion trends. You, too, UCGal. Priceless!!
June 16, 2010 @ 11:07 PM
eavesdropper wrote:. . .
[quote=eavesdropper]. . . polyester and other synthetic “doubleknits” did not come into widespread wardrobe use until later in the sixties, whereupon it became enormously popular, particularly in the seventies (really disturbing mental picture: an endless sea of polyknit leisure suits in a variety of ice cream pastels, paired with color-coordinated nylon floral print shirts and – if you were a really snappy dresser – matching patent leather shoes). . . [/quote]
Just saw this post, eavesdropper, and . . . it’s priceless . . . !
My ex-spouse used to have two “Angel Flight” polyester flare pants, 1 black and 1 brown, that he wore whenever we’d go out at night, ANYWHERE. They were the male equivalent of “Dittos” – LOL! With the blk. pr., he used to wear a black poly satin vest, sometimes with a tie and no shirt and with the brn. pr., he wore a tan and silver shiny nylon button-front long-sleeved “body-shirt” with a giant human eye on the back with really long lashes. To complete the look, he wore short black patent boots. Even as late as ’85, he kept wanting to don these same clothes to go out, until I bought him a ventless jacket and “luxury” levis to go with it and hid the Angel Flights. He looked like a mafioso in the new duds :{
June 17, 2010 @ 10:23 AM
bearishgurl
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=eavesdropper]. . . polyester and other synthetic “doubleknits” did not come into widespread wardrobe use until later in the sixties, whereupon it became enormously popular, particularly in the seventies (really disturbing mental picture: an endless sea of polyknit leisure suits in a variety of ice cream pastels, paired with color-coordinated nylon floral print shirts and – if you were a really snappy dresser – matching patent leather shoes). . . [/quote]
Just saw this post, eavesdropper, and . . . it’s priceless . . . !
My ex-spouse used to have two “Angel Flight” polyester flare pants, 1 black and 1 brown, that he wore whenever we’d go out at night, ANYWHERE. They were the male equivalent of “Dittos” – LOL! With the blk. pr., he used to wear a black poly satin vest, sometimes with a tie and no shirt and with the brn. pr., he wore a tan and silver shiny nylon button-front long-sleeved “body-shirt” with a giant human eye on the back with really long lashes. To complete the look, he wore short black patent boots. Even as late as ’85, he kept wanting to don these same clothes to go out, until I bought him a ventless jacket and “luxury” levis to go with it and hid the Angel Flights. He looked like a mafioso in the new duds :{[/quote]
Have they let him out of prison yet? Holy shit! I mean, you reach a point where you cross over from basic bad taste to where it becomes a 100% disability.
I think that it was highly irresponsible and self-centered of you to divorce this guy, and let him loose on the rest of the population. Please give me some advance notice if he ever plans a trip to DC. We’re already saturated with bad taste. Although you can get away with wearing just about anything as long as you’re sporting an American flag lapel pin.
June 15, 2010 @ 9:38 PM
Dave: Have you visited The
Dave: Have you visited The Hound Clothiers in San Francisco? Its on Sutter in FiDi and it sounds like they’d be right up your alley. When I was with Willis, our SF office was at 50 California, and I always made a point of visiting them when I was in town.
Most of my Tom James suits are in the $800 range, but I love shirts and braces from London. I don’t know if you’re a brace guy (versus a belt guy), but I haven’t done the belt thing since my 20s. Albert Thurston braces are my personal favorite, along with Thomas Pink seven fold ties.
Speaking of ties: Tom James has some nice handmade seven folds that are very reasonably priced.
June 15, 2010 @ 10:19 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: Have you visited The Hound Clothiers in San Francisco? Its on Sutter in FiDi and it sounds like they’d be right up your alley. When I was with Willis, our SF office was at 50 California, and I always made a point of visiting them when I was in town.
Most of my Tom James suits are in the $800 range, but I love shirts and braces from London. I don’t know if you’re a brace guy (versus a belt guy), but I haven’t done the belt thing since my 20s. Albert Thurston braces are my personal favorite, along with Thomas Pink seven fold ties.
Speaking of ties: Tom James has some nice handmade seven folds that are very reasonably priced.[/quote]
Wow, AFF, never had you pegged as a metro, what with the Raiders thing and all, but I guess it kinda makes sense?[img_assist|nid=13461|title=braces|desc=AFF…is that you?|link=none|align=left|width=269|height=510]
June 15, 2010 @ 11:14 PM
If everyone would just look,
If everyone would just look, dress, drink, and act like the cast of Mad Men, this world would be a wonderful place.
September 24, 2011 @ 1:25 PM
Yes, a company should be able
Yes, a company should be able to enforce a dress code for employees on the clock, absolutely. If they choose a dress code that makes their employees took like Menonites, well that is their choice.
Of course, I as a customer should also be free to chose where I do business. And I choose to do business with open minded companies. 🙂
June 16, 2010 @ 9:28 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: Have you visited The Hound Clothiers in San Francisco? Its on Sutter in FiDi and it sounds like they’d be right up your alley. When I was with Willis, our SF office was at 50 California, and I always made a point of visiting them when I was in town.
Most of my Tom James suits are in the $800 range, but I love shirts and braces from London. I don’t know if you’re a brace guy (versus a belt guy), but I haven’t done the belt thing since my 20s. Albert Thurston braces are my personal favorite, along with Thomas Pink seven fold ties.
Speaking of ties: Tom James has some nice handmade seven folds that are very reasonably priced.[/quote]
I’ve heard of the Hound Clothiers in SF but never been there. I’m not up in the bay area a whole lot. But I will check it out. Regarding the $800 Tom James suits, that’s the thing about all of the folks who essentially make “bespoke suits for the masses” (Astor, Hemrajani, James, etc. etc.)… you see the “special” price, but you never get out for less than a few hundred above it… I still haven’t figured out why. I’m not a braces guy – I’m a belt guy. I think braces look silly on short folks and I’m 5’8″. Taller dudes can get away with them. Me loves the seven fold tie… but they can be very expensive.
June 15, 2010 @ 5:39 PM
Ash Housewares wrote: If
[quote=Ash Housewares] If you’re slim AND tall you look doubly ridiculous in off the shelf men’s clothing. Sleeves too short and a circus tent around your waist. The solution I’ve found is to have my shirts custom made by a tailor in Bangkok. There are tons of tailors to choose from. You send them your measurements and what you want [/quote]
Bangkok is a great city for shopping. Value for the money wise, it’s the best place on earth.
I don’t want to spend too much money on my wardrobe so I get my clothing off the rack. But I do buy fitted shirts and flat-front pants.
June 18, 2010 @ 3:11 PM
flu][quote=davelj wrote:Allan
[quote=flu][quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Agreed. I bet she gets at least $500K. I also bet that whatever the number is, most of it will be up in smoke within 5 years.[/quote]
Citibank has nothing to worry, because the ultimate checkwriter is us, the taxpayers 🙂
As a virtual “shareholder” of Citibank, I vote to keep her employed there. We need more people like that @ Citibank if we ever want to see Citibank pay us back. Damn, maybe I should show up at work in spandex to see if it works for me.[/quote]
Check writer FLU? No. Your a partial employer and as such she is expected to render services. Not the type that might get you a beating from your wife but at least the house vacuumed and then you can judge for yourself.
CE
June 15, 2010 @ 4:54 PM
On the subject of women’s
On the subject of women’s business attire: My understanding is that in most of the world, a skirt is generally viewed as more professoinal than pants for a woman to wear. Low heels (although NOT stillettos) are also sort of expected.
I’m not against it, I’m just confused why a skirt, which reveals a lot more, is somehow “more professional”. Then again, I’m also confused why a necktie is “professional”, as it’s mostly silly and honestly a parody of very old timey clothes.
June 15, 2010 @ 5:04 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:On the
[quote=poorgradstudent]On the subject of women’s business attire: My understanding is that in most of the world, a skirt is generally viewed as more professoinal than pants for a woman to wear. Low heels (although NOT stillettos) are also sort of expected.
I’m not against it, I’m just confused why a skirt, which reveals a lot more, is somehow “more professional”. Then again, I’m also confused why a necktie is “professional”, as it’s mostly silly and honestly a parody of very old timey clothes.[/quote]
I always thought that the tie indicates compliance and membership at the same time. It serves as a noose that you can show you are willing to put around our neck in submission and as a designator that you are indeed a poobah amongst poobahs.
June 16, 2010 @ 9:51 AM
…I think this thread is
…I think this thread is devolving into, “Too Much Information”
June 16, 2010 @ 10:10 AM
Hobie wrote:…I think this
[quote=Hobie]…I think this thread is devolving into, “Too Much Information”[/quote]
It is a deeply philosophical discussion using fashion as a vehicle. So, tell us about yourself.
June 16, 2010 @ 1:44 PM
Hobie wrote:…I think this
[quote=Hobie]…I think this thread is devolving into, “Too Much Information”[/quote]
Agreed. Especially this bit:
[quote=davelj]
Likewise. I recommend Charles Tyrwhitt. Big selection of slim fit shits [/quote]
June 16, 2010 @ 2:21 PM
CBad wrote:Hobie wrote:…I
[quote=CBad][quote=Hobie]…I think this thread is devolving into, “Too Much Information”[/quote]
Agreed. Especially this bit:
[quote=davelj]
Likewise. I recommend Charles Tyrwhitt. Big selection of slim fit shits [/quote][/quote]
The man noted, “it’s hard to find fitted shirts for men and the prices are always double or more.” I apologize profusely for being so helpful.
June 16, 2010 @ 2:44 PM
Um, ok, apparently you aren’t
Um, ok, apparently you aren’t getting the joke?
June 16, 2010 @ 2:46 PM
I hate it when my shits get
I hate it when my shits get bunched up in my armpits.
June 16, 2010 @ 2:58 PM
afx114 wrote:I hate it when
[quote=afx114]I hate it when my shits get bunched up in my armpits.[/quote]
Bwahahahaha… I didn’t notice my poor spelling!! That’s funny…
June 16, 2010 @ 10:08 AM
I love being an enginerd. I
I love being an enginerd. I have exactly 2 suits.
June 16, 2010 @ 8:23 PM
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I came across this awhile ago.
I know…I know…kinda crass. Sorry, my piggington lady friends if this post is offensive. I know I know, not everyone in the US. is like pictured on the right.
June 16, 2010 @ 9:55 PM
FLU: First the spandex and
FLU: First the spandex and now this? Thanks, Chief, you’re aces!
June 17, 2010 @ 10:07 AM
flu wrote:Sorry, I couldn’t
[quote=flu]Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I came across this awhile ago.
I know…I know…kinda crass. Sorry, my piggington lady friends if this post is offensive. I know I know, not everyone in the US. is like pictured on the right.[/quote]
Hey, flu, the question of whether I am a lady is arguable, but the only thing that offends me about the picture is that it reminds me of what a disturbingly common sight it is in America these days. What I DO want to know is how you got a picture of my (ex) sister-in-law.
Yes, there’s that arguable question of whether I’m nice, too. Well, perhaps not so arguable…