Fashion Board 3-5-04 to 4-6-04

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Has anyone called a medicine man or an exorcist or somebody to purge the evil spirits from the board?

Just wondering.

Originally posted by Fugee
It was country night on AI and it wasn't always pretty. First thing I have to say is "what the heck is up with the background vocals?" Sometimes they almost overpowered the singer we're supposed to be hearing.

Second thing is that no one should sit down to sing unless they are quite sure they can compensate for the restriction on their diaphragm muscle. Every singer who started out sitting down had support issues** while sitting and singing. Matt Rogers was the worst because his knees were higher than his diaphragm when he sat. I don't know why the vocal coaches didn't clue them in on that.

Pink Amy gave the best country performance of the night and the best performance I've heard her give. Randy is right: she should be singing country. I don't expect her to be in the bottom 3 this week.

My favorites are still George, Fantasia, John Stevens, Jennifer and LaToya, but some did better than others.

George is really growing on me and I like him better every week. I'm trying to remember whose voice I think of when I hear him.

Fantasia can really sing anything. It was a controlled performance compared to her "let it all hang out" ones but I liked it.

This was not my favorite Latoya performance but the judges thought it was great. Maybe I didn't like it because it was a Garth Brooks song. I don't think country is her style but she still rocks as a performer.

This was also not my favorite performance from Jennifer but I think Simon is nuts in telling her she doesn't have it. Hers was not the worst performance by a long shot. Unfortunately, with Fantasia and LaToya in the mix, she doesn't get as many votes. It is possible that she will go this week (and I expect she will be in the bottom 3 because she was last week after a great performance) but she doesn't deserve it.

What can I say about John Stevens? He is a redhead like my nephew and I like his voice. I wish he'd zipped up his "King of the Road" a little and his performance was hindered by sitting down for the first half, which made his voice lack support. Interestingly, this was the first time Randy liked him. I wish he'd waited another 3 years or so until his voice matured more; I think he will be a great singer later on.

My least favorite performance was Camille Velasco. She was very shaky and out of tune, in part because she wasn't supporting while she was sitting. I also hate her voice because she always sounds adenoidal -- or like she is singing with a stuffed nose. I hope she takes a walk this week -- she has given poor performances compared to the others twice in a row and deserves to be the one voted out.

Jon Peter, Jasmine, and Matt Rogers all gave disappointing performances.

Jon Peter was flat a lot and I think it was a bad song choice. He should have done country rock rather than a ballad. Fortunately he didn't dance. He isn't going anywhere this week because he's this year's Clay.

Jasmine's song was in a bad key for her. The low parts were too low and it wasn't in the strong part of her range.

Matt's basic problem was -- surprise surprise -- the lack of support when he sat down at the beginning. He improved when he stood up. For some reason, I'm not "feeling him" and will feel no regrets when he goes home.

**For those who made it through life without a choir or voice teacher, the diaphragm is the muscle that helps fill your lungs with air and controlls the release of that air as well as putting power behind your voice. If a singer tries to sing loud by just the throat (a) em is going to wreck em's voice and (b) it sounds screamy.

Concur on the baCkground singers. They totally helped with Jasmine's song and probably enhanced Amy's really good performance. I give extra points to those who werent helped along by them, like my main man John Stevens.

I still love George and John the most, and voted for John a few times, when I could get through. Matt Rogers sucks- bottom three. Camille is very cute but had a Leah Labelle like performance, but for the unlikability. Bottom three.,

John Peter sucks. but has mormon voting block. safe. I thought Jennifer hudson was really great last night and it was one of my favorites of her performances. When Simon says she doesnt have it, he means she doesnt have it compared to the other two black chicks. He is right, but barely. Bottom three.

This is a hard season to predict bc it seems that a lot of the people have a hardcore fanbase that may not be population wide. Jon Peter has mormons, Jasmine has Pedidiphiliac rice daddies (she is a very good singer but not as good as Latoya and Fantaisa and she sounds black so should be compared to those). Matt Rogers has some group though I dont know who they are. John Stevens has the Clay teenagers and the oldtimers like me and the Fuge. Amy Adams has nobody. Camille has Jasmine's scraps. Jennifer has nobody. and George, Latoya and Fantasia dont need anyone. Thats why its hard to pick who is in the bottom with Camille and Jennifer but I gotta go Matt Rogers bc there are more mormons with time to phone in than whoever votes for Matt. Prediciton, Jennifer gone unfortunately. Should be Camille for a far more unmemorable performance.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I have the urge to say, "burka-imposer, whatever." It seems that the most lascivious guys are the first to keep their daughters from wearing makeup and any clothing that might display any secondary sexual characteristics. That is what bugs me. My bf finding other women attractive does not bug me. My dad finding other women attractive does not bug me. Them making a big public display of saying "whooo baby look at the knockers on that chick! I'd like to fuck her (but only if I'm a few miles away from whoever I'm committed to, hardehar, aren't I a card)!!" and then saying "Fringe, that sweater is too tight and your skirt is too short and no daughter/gf of mine goes out of the house looking like that" would cause me to dump the bf and despise the father.

ETA on the other hand, if the bf/father were to say, "OMG, given I am such a lech about other women, knowing what men think when they see you in that makes me uncomfortable" that would be less of an issue. Also, if the big public "whoo baby" displays were more than a once in a while thing and actually a constant thing and really the vast majority of the bf/dad reperetoire (I can't spell), I would probably dump the bf and despise the dad because no matter how much they say "i'm just kidding, har har" it's not believable. To me. And it's different than that kind of mesmerized staring at ass/tits that guys get in bars/parks in springtime, which I actually do find funny even if I am WITH with them.

You are the Lance Armstrong of backpedaling.

You seem to equate Wonk's (and I assume my, Coltrane's, Str8's and pretty much every other male's on this board who posts about or comments on scantily clad women) board lasciviousness with the construction workers you encounter on the street who scream out nasty things at the top of their lungs. Please. What gets posted here absolutely does not amount to "the big public 'whoo baby' displays." You know this. I'm sure most of us are quite capable of controlling our perverted urges to scream out the kind of crap you are referring to.

I also think you are completely full of shit when you say:

"It seems that the most lascivious guys are the first to keep their daughters from wearing makeup and any clothing that might display any secondary sexual characteristics. That is what bugs me."

How do you know this? Are you talking about your personal experiences with family members and boyfriends (with kids) or something? And how exactly does it bug you? If you don't know them, do you follow these perverts home and review their parenting skills? Do you follow the overly protective boyfriends and fathers around to catch them yelling out nasty shit?

It's pretty clear you have decided that it seems most lascivious guys are the first to keep their daughters from displaying their sexual characteristics. You are making assumptions. Sure, you may have seen it a few times, but please.

I think most guys fall under the category of man that may get mesmerized by the features of a beautiful woman, especially when it's up front and in your face. Your translations of what gets posted here to what people say out loud, irl, are not realistic.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
BTW, a quick web search will tell you that many ostensibly imported beers are actual brewed in North America under license to the original brewers, and so are technically not "imported": Foster's . . . Canada), Sapporo . . . Canada, Kirin Ichiban. . . ; Carlsberg. . . Canada; . . . . Guinness . . . Canada. . . . Harp .. . [Canada]. Sneaky Canadians.

Glad to see we no longer have to "import" gwnc. NAFTA, indeed!

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
It seems to me that there is an enormous difference between a father telling his daughter how to dress and a husband telling his wife how to dress. A husband telling his wife how to dress isn't trying to protect her. I think the father telling the daughter is protective, and so not hypocritical if he ogles women. A man who tells his wife how to dress and then ogles women - well I don't know what he is, but I wouldn't marry him.*

Is there some kind of automatic jump to the most extreme case going on here that I'm not aware of?

I have, on occasion, said something like, "uh, can you button that button so all your cleavage isn't showing?" I'm sure there have been other occasions where I have been honest about how I feel about an article of clothing an SO has worn. This does not amount to grabbing the offending article and burning it, so as to keep it from every being worn again.

There is a fine line between (i) stepping out with your SO who looks sexy as hell and having people look at her and think so and (ii) having a bunch of pervs staring longingly at her tits which are hanging out of that way-too-low-cut top, trying to make eye contact or whispering things to her the first chance they get. One is not so bad. The other causes guys to cross the line in ways that are disrespectful to my SO and me. Expressing your displeasure over these kinds of outfits is natural. And let me tell you this, if you decide to dress up like an absolute hooker and your SO doesn't say anything, that's when you need to start worrying.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Fugee
You could always try what women have done for eons with their guys' favorite ugly clothes...."accidentally" include them with the bag going to the Salvation Army.

I lost on the over/under with this post. I thought you would have responded with this within 5 minutes.

TM

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You are the Lance Armstrong of backpedaling.
[something about the substance of ltl's posts]

Listen, dude, I just caught up on the late afternoon-into-evening exercise in character assassination, and as much as I enjoyed it, if I have to read one more post desconstrcuting or reconstructing ltl's posts to determine whether she called Wonk a pedophile, I am going staple my eyelids shut. So, let's just skip that part and get onto the ad hominem attacks. You started well with your enjoyable backpedaling turn of phrase. Now, it is time to step it up. Here, I can help. ltl thinks you are a misanthropic bully with a huge chip on your shoulder and are the purest form of assholery on the boards. Are you going to take that from her???

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Glad to see we no longer have to "import" gwnc. NAFTA, indeed!

No idea what this means, but it sounds almost as sweet as a welcome notice from the department of Homeland Security. (almost). Thanks, Burger.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Listen, dude, I just caught up on the late afternoon-into-evening exercise in character assassination, and as much as I enjoyed it, if I have to read one more post desconstrcuting or reconstructing ltl's posts to determine whether she called Wonk a pedophile, I am going staple my eyelids shut. So, let's just skip that part and get onto the ad hominem attacks. You started well with your enjoyable backpedaling turn of phrase. Now, it is time to step it up. Here, I can help. ltl thinks you are a misanthropic bully with a huge chip on your shoulder and are the purest form of assholery on the boards. Are you going to take that from her???

I was at a bar/restaurant at my college. The place has a staff photo from every year since it opened (my last year there). So I was looking at the photo from my last year thinking I wished I had fucked a couple of them; same thing the next year; the next year, etc.

But then, after about 7 or 8 years, I stopped feeling that lust, and started thinking how young they looked. Thing is all the picture were of 18-22 year olds, why should there be a difference on how I felt about the images, based upon how old they are now?

So I'm worried that maybe I'm in denial, and secretely have some pedophile thing that my id is trying to subjogate. I have taken this opportunity to"grasp the nettles" and go public, rather than waiting to be outed after some comment here. Thank you.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
My Point of View:

Once you publicly acknowledge that you have someone on ignore, you have violated all precepts of "ignore". (TM, PP, listening?)

"Ignore" is your own filter. Once you claim it as a badge, you are a weak little techno-nerd, unable to handle the crushing blows administered by your ignoree.

I'm listening, oh wisest of all wise. Thanks for helping me through these tough internet issues.

Please allow me to disagree, though.

My Point of View:

Most of the people I put on ignore are of the useless variety. That means that they have nothing valuable to say. Rarely do I put someone on ignore who attacks me or who thinks their shit doesn't stink (bilmore, listening?). When I tell you you've been put on ignore, I do so because it is the ultimate insult. It means you are not even worthy of being listened to. I like insults.

So, I won't ignore you, but kiss my ass.

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
You know, you act like that post was insulting only to you. Did you ever once think about the offense Shape Shifter might take to the implication that reptiles are worthy of contempt? I bet you didn't. You are so insensitive.

I disclaim any intent to imply that all reptilian life forms are contmptible and apologize to Shape Shifter and all his minions for any psychic discomfort I may have caused them.

Reptile-pleaser!

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Not Me
I have been on the west coast waaaaay too long. I live on the peninsula (silicon valley) not SF so I wear jeans/pants/maybe occasionally a skirt to work (unless going to court, then I dress appropriately for court). I have forgotten what is acceptable east coast business attire. This is not for court. This is for an east coast business meeting with east coast business people at a start up (yep, there are a few still).

Can I wear boots with a long skirt in business setting or is that not acceptable?

If by "business attire" you really mean business attire, then on the east coast that still means a business suit - i.e.: court attire. If the east coast city is NY, you can get away with wearing a thin turtle neck or other sweater (merino, cashmere, something like that - definitely not the icky cotton turtlenecks in the Lands End catalog) as your top under the suit jacket for warmth - dunno for sure about other cities, but it would seem in most of them this should be fine, particularly if you can dress it up with a scarf or something. Boots will be fine if it is a trouser suit. But it is warming up out here again, so all this may not be necessary - I'd check the forecast for your city.

If by "business attire" you mean "nice business casual, suitable for seeing a client" then a longer skirt (going all the way to ankle length would be a bit too ... too, but a mid-to-low-calf should be just fine) with non-slutty boots and a sweater should be fine. Make sure the sweater is pretty nice, not a skiing, fisherman's or sporty sweater (i.e.: no snowflake patterns, no big nubbly "rustic" knits, no reindeer, obviously).

But I'd confirm the dress code - even with startups, tech clients and creative types, the default dress for client meetings out here is now suits.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
Can I wear boots with a long skirt in business setting or is that not acceptable? It is fucking cold there now and the boots would keep me warm. They are not stilletos or anything sexy. Just below the knee length boots with a long skirt.

On the off chance that you really are a girl, the answer to your question is yes (and I suppose the answer to your question is yes even if you're not a girl).

I work in an investment bank (i.e., a fairly conservative environment), and most women wear boots during the winter with skirts/dresses. I do, and I see many, many other women wearing them too. So, have at it!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I was at a bar/restaurant at my college. The place has a staff photo from every year since it opened (my last year there). So I was looking at the photo from my last year thinking I wished I had fucked a couple of them; same thing the next year; the next year, etc.

But then, after about 7 or 8 years, I stopped feeling that lust, and started thinking how young they looked. Thing is all the picture were of 18-22 year olds, why should there be a difference on how I felt about the images, based upon how old they are now?

So I'm worried that maybe I'm in denial, and secretely have some pedophile thing that my id is trying to subjogate. I have taken this opportunity to"grasp the nettles" and go public, rather than waiting to be outed after some comment here. Thank you.

If it makes you feel any better Hank, I had/have lust in my heart for the kid who plays Wood in the Harry Potter series. He was 17 at the time he first caught my fancy, though I think he's 21 now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Jack Manfred
And people wonder why I don't post at work...

To answer the poll (instead of getting sucked into some sort of Dynasty-era bitch-fight)

I'd Move To
1. San Diego
2. Las Vegas
3. Denver
4. Chicago
5. Toronto
6. Newport Beach
7. London
8. Dublin
9. Galway (Ireland)
10. Paris
11. Vancouver *
12. Austin *
13. Seattle *
14. Portland *

I'd Not Move To
1. New York (while a practicing attorney)
2. Philadelphia
3. Detroit
4. Fresno (see also Riverside, Bakersfield, Stockton...)

* I've never been to these places, but I hear they're nice

Missed this poll.

I'd move to:

1. Montreal
2. Toronto
3. London
4. San Francisco
5. Just about any rural location
6. Maybe San Antonio

I wouldn't go near:

1. New York
2. San Diego
3. Dallas
4. Miami
5. New Orleans
6. Anyplace where Bilmore, ltl/fb and Wonk gather