Fashion Board 11-2-03 - 12-09-03

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by Not Me
Paigow - My advice to you if you are serious (and I strongly suspect that you are a bit serious, although not completely serious) is to look at men who fall into a looks category one less than you. So, if you are an 8, look for a hubby in the 7's. Consider the 6's if they have alot of money.

Also keep in mind that you are probably one looks category below what you think you are (it is human nature to think we are a bit cuter than we really are). So if you think you are an 8, look for a hubby in the 6's since in reality, you are probably a 7. Consider the 5's if they have alot of money.

I often hear people classifying looks by the 1-10 number scale. So let me ask this.
Is there a str8 distribution across numbers? (10% of the population is a 1, 10% is a 5, 10% is a 10) Or is it bell curvy? (less than 1 percent are a 10, while 66% fall in the 4-6 range?)

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by purse junkie
Where's the 80s pop compilation to demonstrate retro irony?

Let us be clear on this point. The 80s pop compilation does not demonstrate retro irony. It demonstrates that you suck.

I have wanted to shout this message from the rooftops many hundreds of times over the last year. I have wanted to tattoo it on the ashen faces of the 80s revivalist faux-hipsters. I almost bought a "The 80s still suck" t-shirt a few months ago, but I realized at the time that if I do that, the terrorists have won.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Few things are really as much fun as bitch-slapping opposing counsel over some issue you only pretend to really care about.

Alright already, we get it; you're the "I love my job" guy (which is easily as tired as Sebby's "I hate my job" schtick).

But "few things are really as much fun..."??? Dude, that's fucked up.

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Let us be clear on this point. The 80s pop compilation does not demonstrate retro irony. It demonstrates that you suck.

I have wanted to shout this message from the rooftops many hundreds of times over the last year. I have wanted to tattoo it on the ashen faces of the 80s revivalist faux-hipsters. I almost bought a "The 80s still suck" t-shirt a few months ago, but I realized at the time that if I do that, the terrorists have won.

I actually listen to it because I like it. No irony involved.

And I make no apologies, either.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by purse junkie
I actually listen to it because I like it. No irony involved.

And I make no apologies, either.

Do you, by any chance, have any albums by the Faint, from Omaha, Nebraska? I think you'd probably like them.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Do you, by any chance, have any albums by the Faint, from Omaha, Nebraska? I think you'd probably like them.

Oh no. I have started a thread of 80s music loving and not in an ironic way posts.

How ironic.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
I often hear people classifying looks by the 1-10 number scale. So let me ask this.
Is there a str8 distribution across numbers? (10% of the population is a 1, 10% is a 5, 10% is a 10) Or is it bell curvy? (less than 1 percent are a 10, while 66% fall in the 4-6 range?)

Technically, it would be a bell curve, with 5 being the average person. However, most of us tend to set the average looks as at least one category below our own and that will affect the distribution. So, if you are not that cute but not ugly (in my opinion), I would put you at a 4, you will probably think of yourself as more of a 5 and perhaps on a good day a 6. Your curve will thus be skewed to have more people in the higher numbers than mine would.

A better way to assess your level of attractiveness and who you should seek out to date/marry is to assess the level of attractiveness of those members of the opposite sex who are attracted to your looks only. So this is a "who looks at you when you walk down the streets" assessment. You cannot factor personality into this, so don't take into account the people who know you and are attracted to you.

If you are a female, the best looking males of those who are attracted to you as you walk down the street are one looks category below you. You should focus your efforts on attracting men of a similar looks category as that. Don't waste time on the guys who are better looking than that because the chances are slim that they will be asking you to marry them.

If they have alot of money, you have to go 1 looks category below the best looking guys who are attracted to you when you walk down the street. The reason I say this is because guys who have alot of money want to be with women at least 2 looks categories above theirs. They think that their money entitles them to that.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
[I need a man]

What's wrong with the linebacker I'm sending you?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Oh no. I have started a thread of 80s music loving and not in an ironic way posts.

How ironic.

FWIW, I don't think that the Faint released any albums in the 1980s.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Str8, nice sentiment, but judging by its cover, I think this book is useless. I find it hard to believe that any over-35 woman, after all those years of waiting for a husband, would settle for a wedding ring made of yellow gold, and even more difficult to believe that someone with a Harvard MBA would suggest that anything less than platinum is acceptable. Really.

And since a simple platinum band would look just like sterling silver or white gold (the horror! the fakery!), she really should have used a channel set diamond band for the cover.

Wrong. A channel set diamond band can make a lovely engagement or anniversary ring. However, according to the Mrs. Wonk Book of Excruciatingly Correct (WASP) Behavior, the only appropriate thing for a wedding band is a plain gold band, possibly with the wedding date engraved on the inside. Anything more showy simply betrays a prole background and guarantees you will not be invited to join the Junior League.

Thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts. Paigow, would you care to tell the Puppy what she's won?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Wrong. A channel set diamond band can make a lovely engagement or anniversary ring. However, according to the Mrs. Wonk Book of Excruciatingly Correct (WASP) Behavior, the only appropriate thing for a wedding band is a plain gold band, possibly with the wedding date engraved on the inside. Anything more showy simply betrays a prole background and guarantees you will not be invited to join the Junior League.

Thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts. Paigow, would you care to tell the Puppy what she's won?

Are white and yellow gold equally acceptable? If so, my parents were WASPs at the time they got married. And here I always thought they were just poor.

Also, as an aside, my mom got her wedding ring stolen when she got mugged once (my dad's wouldn't come off -- the guy threatened to shoot off his finger but happily the neighbor came out with his shotgun at that point and the mugger ran) and now she wears a ring that looks nothing like any wedding ring I've ever seen. But it's cool. My dad continues to wear his unremovable ring. Maybe when he gets emaciated in old age he'll be able to get it off.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
I just searched for something on the old Fashion thread and was astonished to see, in a post by Atticus, a huge picture of a naked and not very beautiful woman sticking a finger up her fully shaved "self" and using her other hand to pour water down her neck.

This was not the original picture, I am pretty sure, and I am wondering if the link Atticus used has changed.

And I am seriously concerned that tomorrow I will come in to find that I cannot access lawtalkers anymore. As I got the hell out of dodge pretty quickly I don't remember the post number but I think it was from September and it showed up after I searched "ecstasy," clicked on a Sparklehorse post, and scrolled up the page.

If Atticus isn't here tomorrow, it sounds like he was violating the terms of his work-release again.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Here is a story about a prosecutor who was found dead after he did not show up for the first day of the trial of a rapper/accused drug distributor:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...ecutor.html?hp

My favorite part of the story (aside from the joy I always feel when hearing about a life that has been prematurely and presumably violently snuffed out) is as follows:

"Luna was trying the case of Baltimore rapper Deon Lionnel Smith, 32, and his one-time associate Walter Oriley Poindexter, 28. The two men are accused of heroin distribution and running a violent drug ring in part from their Stash House Records studio."

Stash House Records? So, you are planning on running a violent drug ring out of your record studio, and you decide to call it Stash House Records?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
the only appropriate thing for a wedding band is a plain gold band, possibly with the wedding date engraved on the inside. Anything more showy simply betrays a prole background and guarantees you will not be invited to join the Junior League.

What if the majority of your wardrobe is black? Gold jewelry with black clothing is sooo trailer park-esque.

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are white and yellow gold equally acceptable? If so, my parents were WASPs at the time they got married. And here I always thought they were just poor.

Whatever looks best on you and whichever you like best is the most acceptable. And anyone who would criticize your wedding ring to you on "correctness" or any other grounds is a coarse pig whose opinion does not count.