Newber-Friendly

[Gr8testHitS(lave)]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
SPOILER. (KIND OF. WELL NOT REALLY, BUT ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.)







I'm not sure the criticisms were so bizarre. I assume the judges wanted the designers to "step it up" or whatever words they used because they wanted to see the range of the designers -- to see that the designers could push themselves to create something out of their comfort zone (which they each have) and yet still make it good. The comment about one designer stepping it up too much is just that this designer, in attempting to be a bit risky, overstepped the bounds of good taste. As they said, it's a fine line between daring and gaudy. As for cohesiveness, well, one aspect of the competition was to create a "collection." Otherwise it would have been called a "bunch of individual pieces." So cohesiveness factors into the judging equation. Finally, the comment that people would buy the clothes is not a throwaway comment. It was a great compliment, but obviously that cannot be enough. Otherwise the designer who sends models down the runways in jeans and white t-shirts wins. Sure, like any subjective judging, you are going to get some weird comments. But I thought the judges were pretty right on last night. I mean, hell, they agreed with me.

"All Earth Tones, All of the Time"? Isn't there a blue/black requirement in the BIGLAW Associates Handbook?

But seriously, I'm quite concerned by this slow progression to an "all casual" policy. Fridays are one thing, and summers another. But all the time? I mean, the reality is that most people have two distinct wardrobes ("work" and "going out") with very little overlap between the two. Speaking for myself, my "going out" wardrobe is not what many of my partners would deem as proper "business casual (although if they did, this place would be stylin'). As such, a third wardrobe of "business casual" must now be purchased, if only for casual friday - and not to mention that if you live in the NE you need this third wardrobe for both summer and winter.

Additionally, my business wardrobe is quite extensive, and to build it was quite costly. A nice suit, even on sale, costs more than an entire Bus-Cas ensemble from Banana Republic.

So, to raise QOL, firms are going to make us go out and buy all new clothes, and put all of our nice expensive business clothes into storage. Thanks a lot.

We're gonna need another increase.

Gr8testHitS(lave)

http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/cl...?msg_id=0000fh

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
SPOILER





SPOILER





Michael just finished showing and I am disappointed. Laura had a 20's thing going and it was good, but not daring enough. Ulli was good -- some of the same old shit, but some new stuff that was goof. Jeffrey was good. Very good. Stepped outside of himself but athe the same time remained true to himself, and had a great flow to the collection. I don't particularly like the guy, but on this night, he should win.

Amazing. I thought his collection was crap. I saw maybe two cool pieces in the whole thing and although he had good "flow," it seemed to me like he was third behind Ulli and Laura. But maybe that's just because I think his style sucks. The only piece he's ever done that I've liked was the dress he made for the garbage challenge.

And tell me why the fuck he didn't get booted for going over budget. That is simply inexcusable. This is a competition. Come up with all your receipts and stay under budget. Allowing him to pick which piece he didn't want to include that put him over budget and to simply remove the other piece he didn't have a receipt for seems ridiculous. If they hadn't caught it, he would be straight-up cheating. And presumably no one else had this problem. I thought that whole thing was complete bullshit. Fuck a Jeffrey.

I was very impressed with Laura's collection. It was sophisticated, beautiful and mature, but not old. Too many feathers, but the nice pieces were absolutely gorgeous. I detest her like a sickness, but she did a great job. Much better than Jeffrey.

Michael's collection was disappointing. It felt like he didn't use the experience to grow as a designer at all. Most of the shit was tacky. Maybe three decent pieces in the whole collection.

Ulli's collection was gorgeous. I thought she won hands down. She used her prints for some pieces, but also explored other styles while keeping her Ulli flair. Everything she put out there looked great and the theme carried over very well from one piece to the next. She was fucking robbed.

What a disappointing finale. The outcome sucked and the way they handled Jeffrey was bullshit. Bleh.

What they should do is force the designers to use each piece they made during the show's run, combined with the pieces they come up with for their collection. Of course, the audience would have to be told that the other pieces were part of the challenges and give a brief description of each challenge, but the winner should be judged on their entire body of work.

Also, the crowd at the runway show should decide who wins. The judges are too close to the contestants and I think they're sometimes inconsistent and unfair. Have the audience use one of those opinion knobs for each piece and then tally up the scores.

TM

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
SPOILER. (KIND OF. WELL NOT REALLY, BUT ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.)







I'm not sure the criticisms were so bizarre. I assume the judges wanted the designers to "step it up" or whatever words they used because they wanted to see the range of the designers -- to see that the designers could push themselves to create something out of their comfort zone (which they each have) and yet still make it good. The comment about one designer stepping it up too much is just that this designer, in attempting to be a bit risky, overstepped the bounds of good taste. As they said, it's a fine line between daring and gaudy. As for cohesiveness, well, one aspect of the competition was to create a "collection." Otherwise it would have been called a "bunch of individual pieces." So cohesiveness factors into the judging equation. Finally, the comment that people would buy the clothes is not a throwaway comment. It was a great compliment, but obviously that cannot be enough. Otherwise the designer who sends models down the runways in jeans and white t-shirts wins. Sure, like any subjective judging, you are going to get some weird comments. But I thought the judges were pretty right on last night. I mean, hell, they agreed with me.

2 to all of this. It seemed to me that they're asking the designers to push themselves to their limits within the confines of the rules of the competition. That means that a designer should be able to express his or her own point of view consistently and with quality.

I would buy the clothes from two of the collections I saw last night. I wanted to love a third collection last night, but that designer seemed to have lost em's way, which is sad because em was very promising. I would desperately want to buy the clothes from the collection that won last night. It's not a question of what I like personally, it's a question of what is the best design within the confines of the rules of the game.

Again, this process seemed to resemble my brother's description of architecture school. They'd be given an assignment, they'd work on the design for a seemingly impossibly short period of time, and then a panel would review the presentation and rip it apart.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
spoiler












And tell me why the fuck he didn't get booted for going over budget. That is simply inexcusable. This is a competition. Come up with all your receipts and stay under budget. Allowing him to pick which piece he didn't want to include that put him over budget and to simply remove the other piece he didn't have a receipt for seems ridiculous. If they hadn't caught it, he would be straight-up cheating. And presumably no one else had this problem. I thought that whole thing was complete bullshit. Fuck a Jeffrey.

I agree with you about this. Rules are rules. The other contestants stayed under budget.

[robustpuppy]

I know that it's silly to get irritated by the misleading nature of newspaper headlines, but given that they are usually misleading in an inflammatory sense, I am surprised by the euphemistic tone of the headline and the opening sentence of the story below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101900533.html

A Florida newspaper has interviewed a Catholic priest who acknowledged having an intimate, two-year relationship 40 years ago with a youthful Mark Foley, the former U.S. Congressman who resigned last month after being accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with Congressional pages.

Rev. Anthony Mercieca told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune that he befriended Foley when he was assigned to Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Lake Worth, Fla. Foley was an altar boy in the parish.

Mercieca told the newspaper that he took overnight trips with Foley, skinny-dipped and sat naked in a sauna with him and massaged Foley while the youth was undressed, the article says. Foley was 12 or 13 at the time.

The priest told the newspaper that he believed there was one explicitly sexual encounter with Foley, during an overnight trip when Mercieca was in what he described as a drug-induced stupor.

The priest admits having an "intimate relationship" with a "youthful Mark Foley." Mark Foley was TWELVE. Eighteen is "youthful." Twelve is a child. The priest admits to skinny dipping, taking naked saunas, and massaging a 12-year-old. That is not "intimate," that is sexual contact. An intimate relationship is something to which an adult consents. Since it couldn't have been consensual, it wasn't a relationship, therefore, it could only have been abuse.

Again, I am talking about the press, so it's pointless even to say this, but this headline and the tone of the story are ridiculous and appalling. What this priest has admitted to could be described with a string of harsh, judgmental adjectives that I hesitate to use because they are usually in the arsenal of the most righteosly hypocritical people in this country ... but it's clearly immoral, indecent, illegal, disgusting, and abusive. Yet he seems to be getting gentler treatment from these reporters and/or their editors than Foley himself, or even Dennis Hastert, are getting in connection with the page scandal.

And what do they mean by "explicit sexual encounter"? Were all the other naked encounters only implicitly sexual? Is the difference, either in the priest's mind, or the reporters' minds, that somebody's private parts got touched that time?

I don't expect the article to display obvious disgust, but the way this article describes what happened, you'd think the priest was just some old guy reminiscing about a ski trip with his college girlfriend.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I agree with you about this. Rules are rules. The other contestants stayed under budget.

The lawyer in me would have to look at how the rules were written. The presentation that hit the runway was under budget. The item that didn't have receipts weren't included. He had an extra pair of jeans that presumably was included in the receipts or they wouldn't have let them into the show, which means he made more than he was required to make.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
spoiler








The lawyer in me would have to look at how the rules were written. The presentation that hit the runway was under budget. The item that didn't have receipts weren't included. He had an extra pair of jeans that presumably was included in the receipts or they wouldn't have let them into the show, which means he made more than he was required to make.

Indeed, but we don't just look to the letter of the law but also to the spirit. His conduct was not in keeping with the spirit of the law. Maybe I just think the guy is an asshole. However, I did like his collection, and I think it would have been too bad if those clothes weren't part of the competition. Hard to say.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
you'd think the priest was just some old guy reminiscing about a ski trip with his college girlfriend.

This part is kind of telling:

Merceica said he wishes Foley well, and wants to "let bygones be bygones," the Herald-Tribune reported. He said he still "has great memories" of the trips he took with Foley nearly half-century ago.

Ugh.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Indeed, but we don't just look to the letter of the law but also to the spirit. His conduct was not in keeping with the spirit of the law. Maybe I just think the guy is an asshole. However, I did like his collection, and I think it would have been too bad if those clothes weren't part of the competition. Hard to say.

Well, for me, since it was just the wigs that got him so far over budget and the wigs weren't necessarily part of the design, it didn't seem to matter that much.

I don't like him at all personally, but I think he makes outstanding clothes.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
[ ] was fucking robbed.
TM

I totally agree. I heart [ ].

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
This part is kind of telling:

Merceica said he wishes Foley well, and wants to "let bygones be bygones," the Herald-Tribune reported. He said he still "has great memories" of the trips he took with Foley nearly half-century ago.

Ugh.

It's almost like the newspapers agree. "Hey, let the old guy have his peace." Bygones.

ETA that cnn seems to have captured the right tone:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/....ap/index.html

I think I'm turning into one of those female attorneys that paralegals hate to work with on matters. I don't know why, but we have a new paralegal (about 7 months) in our dept and she's a bit lazy and I call her on it because I don't have time to clean up her projects. My partner has plenty of time, and he does clean up her projects. Anyway, she pushes back on EVERYTHING that I ask her to do, and she gets snotty. She's constantly apologizing for her uproars and blames it on that age (hot flashes, etc.)

I'm getting to the point where I'm just going to be one of those female attorneys and to hell with it.

How do you handle these situations with your paralegals? I had to fire another paralegal about a year ago, but he was worthless.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The lawyer in me would have to look at how the rules were written. The presentation that hit the runway was under budget. The item that didn't have receipts weren't included. He had an extra pair of jeans that presumably was included in the receipts or they wouldn't have let them into the show, which means he made more than he was required to make.

He was over budget by more than $200. It is his responsibility to make sure he stayed under budget. For every other challenge, they had to stick to the letter of the rules (remember when they had to use every piece of material for that one challenge; and for every challenge, they had to stay under budget*).

He included the extra pair of jeans and was able to put them in the challenge because he got rid of the wigs, which cost a bunch of money. But you either submit a complete collection under the rules or you don't. What the fuck is this, "I made extra and I brought it in case you figure out that I went over and have to get rid of something else -- so I'll just use this"? How the hell does he get to choose what comes out because he tried to submit a collection where he went over budget? At the absolute minimum, the other contestants should have been able to choose which piece to remove.

The bottom line is, if they didn't go over his receipts with a fine-tooth comb to figure out that he went over, he would be at an advantage to everyone else. And guess what? If they didn't ask for those receipts or didn't look at them, those extra pair of jeans would have been in his collection too. Everyone else followed the rules and I think the guy was a fucking asshole and trying to get away with whatever he could.

I was very disappointed because of how many times (with the other guy who tried to cheat and then last episode) The Gunn said how seriously they take their rules. Yeah, right.

TM

*Do you think if someone went over budget in one of the weekly challenges that they could just say, "Okay, I went over by 15% and the belt represents 15% of this outfit, so I'll just remove that and you can judge me on the rest." I don't think so.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by RealityBites
I think I'm turning into one of those female attorneys that paralegals hate to work with on matters. I don't know why, but we have a new paralegal (about 7 months) in our dept and she's a bit lazy and I call her on it because I don't have time to clean up her projects. My partner has plenty of time, and he does clean up her projects. Anyway, she pushes back on EVERYTHING that I ask her to do, and she gets snotty. She's constantly apologizing for her uproars and blames it on that age (hot flashes, etc.)

I'm getting to the point where I'm just going to be one of those female attorneys and to hell with it.

How do you handle these situations with your paralegals? I had to fire another paralegal about a year ago, but he was worthless.

Is she hottt?

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by RealityBites
I think I'm turning into one of those female attorneys that paralegals hate to work with on matters. I don't know why, but we have a new paralegal (about 7 months) in our dept and she's a bit lazy and I call her on it because I don't have time to clean up her projects. My partner has plenty of time, and he does clean up her projects. Anyway, she pushes back on EVERYTHING that I ask her to do, and she gets snotty. She's constantly apologizing for her uproars and blames it on that age (hot flashes, etc.)

I'm getting to the point where I'm just going to be one of those female attorneys and to hell with it.

How do you handle these situations with your paralegals? I had to fire another paralegal about a year ago, but he was worthless.

Hire someone young and eager. Old bags doing this gig for 20 years NEVER want to work and they always shirk duties and dump on the rest of us. I've never had a review describing what you've described.