Fashion Board 12-09-03 through 1-08-04 - Page 55

Shape Shifter · 12-12-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Ditto on the Star Trek characters, 'kay? Between you and Seven of Nine, I think we are set.

Assclench, please. My avatar was not chosen out of my affinity for Star Trek in general or one wholly unbelievable episode in particular (let's face it, Kirk got lucky, and not for the first time). I chose my avatar simply as a way of relating a concept to feeble mammal minds that otherwise may have difficulty grasping the idea of shifting shapes. And, if I may say so, my breasticle day picture was hot.

Well fed on a proper diet of human blood, prefereably that of blonde-haired blue-eyed children, I can choose to appear fully human and operate freely in society. '96 was an excellent year for children, particularly in Oregon's Willamette Valley.

But this is distracting us from more important issues. What's the deal with white guys who date asian chicks exclusively?

NotFromHere · 12-12-2003, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
It is all Not My Fault and Not Amusing To Me, I assure you.

I will Not Stop Fucking. But I will agree to Not Discontinue My Birth Control either. G'day.

I have absolutely nothing to do with the recent increase in the family.

NotBob, what do you have to say for yourself?

Sidd Finch · 12-12-2003, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
Anyway, what's wrong with spending a little on a nice watch? It's not like you're plopping down $15,000 on a gawdy jewel-speckled Rolex. It's a couple hundred bucks on an understated, stylish watch that will last till the day you die and then some. How is that a bad thing?

Depends what you have to do to make it last past your death.

Think "Pulp Fiction."

Oliver_Wendell_Ramone · 12-12-2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Well fed on a proper diet of human blood, prefereably that of blonde-haired blue-eyed children, I can choose to appear fully human and operate freely in society. '96 was an excellent year for children, particularly in Oregon's Willamette Valley.

The 2000 vintage blonde-haired blue-eyed children are not aging nearly so well. No reason for you to visit the Willamette Valley again. Nope, nothing to see here. Move along, lizard.

Ollie (think I can get a 3-year-old to wear a wig and brown contact lenses?) Ramone

ThurgreedMarshall · 12-12-2003, 01:58 PM

I no longer place all the blame on Cashman and Steinbrenner for losing Pettitte. It looks to me like his mind was made up long ago (as NotBob seemed to have known).

Here is a breakdown of the negotiations:

October 25: "At the conclusion of the World Series, I told Andy we'd be in touch with him soon."

Early November: "Prior to Andy electing to go free agent, I made a get-us-started offer to Randy, of $10 (million) for three (years). His response was, he would take it to Andy. He also said Andy wanted to test the market, see his market-value, and asked if we would give him patience.
"This was new to him, and something he had earned. We had to respect that. Free agency means free choice."

Late November: "We wanted to get something done before Thanksgiving. I presented a series of concept offers ... $11 (million) for three (years), will that work? ... $17 over three, plus some deferred ... a $12 for three idea was thrown back.
"We exchanged concepts back and forth."

December 10, 7 p.m.: "Last night I got their first official counter-offer, $52 for four [years] 'to get his attention.' There was no guarantee that he would take it."

December 10, 10:30 p.m.: "We responded, $13 for three, with the third-year guaranteed on some concepts, which I'd rather not get into."

December 11, 10:30 a.m.: "They informed us they made the decision to go to Houston."

http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/NASAp...=.jsp&c_id=nya
_________

TM

Shape Shifter · 12-12-2003, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
There are also too many of you who simply are NotFunny.

Just keep manufacturing children, sweetheart.

Sidd Finch · 12-12-2003, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
The difference, I think, is that I don't buy the mink potscrubber or the jewel-encrusted tent peg. A good tent peg is almost a zenlike thing, but adding rubies around the top and then speaking of value seems . . . well . . . different.

Uh-huh. And your motorcycle was the cheapest scooter on the lot? Or does spending a few grand to go faster, look cooler, and rev louder equate to "value" in your mind, while spending a few hundred bucks to have something you wear everyday look good and function perfectly equates to "waste of money"?

And is your kayak one of those red plastic ones that we had in summer camp?

The difference is that you and wonk are different people making different choices about how to spend your hard-earned money. Until you spend most of your feeding the poor, stop pontificating about why your choices are morally superior to anyone else's.

Not Me · 12-12-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
But this is distracting us from more important issues. What's the deal with white guys who date asian chicks exclusively?

That'a an easy one. They are into submissive chicks. It's not due to inner turmoil. It is more of a fetish.

purse junkie · 12-12-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Uh-huh. And your motorcycle was the cheapest scooter on the lot? Or does spending a few grand to go faster, look cooler, and rev louder equate to "value" in your mind, while spending a few hundred bucks to have something you wear everyday look good and function perfectly equates to "waste of money"?

And is your kayak one of those red plastic ones that we had in summer camp?

The difference is that you and wonk are different people making different choices about how to spend your hard-earned money. Until you spend most of your feeding the poor, stop pontificating about why your choices are morally superior to anyone else's.

Right. The main thing wrong with spending $15k on a watch is that most of us can't.

Oh perfect little Gucci bag...no vapid society skeletor would ever love you so much as I....

Sidd Finch · 12-12-2003, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by purse junkie
Right. The main thing wrong with spending $15k on a watch is that most of us can't.

They weren't talking about $15k watches, they were talking about watches "under $500." Which is a good bit more than I've ever spent on a watch, but less than what I'll spend on a really nice dinner for two.

purse junkie · 12-12-2003, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
They weren't talking about $15k watches, they were talking about watches "under $500." Which is a good bit more than I've ever spent on a watch, but less than what I'll spend on a really nice dinner for two.

Either way. The money's still better invested in the handbag. Plus dinner.

bilmore · 12-12-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Uh-huh. And your motorcycle was the cheapest scooter on the lot? Or does spending a few grand to go faster, look cooler, and rev louder equate to "value" in your mind, while spending a few hundred bucks to have something you wear everyday look good and function perfectly equates to "waste of money"?

And is your kayak one of those red plastic ones that we had in summer camp?

The difference is that you and wonk are different people making different choices about how to spend your hard-earned money. Until you spend most of your feeding the poor, stop pontificating about why your choices are morally superior to anyone else's.

Yesterday, the music poll (I think it was) left me thinking you were a lot younger than I had thought before.

Now, I think you're a lot older, and have lost your sense of humor, and can't quite get your grasp around giving someone a hard time, for fun, for calling a $500 watch a "good value".

(And, when the day comes when I try to justify my bike as a "good value", well, roll me over and call me Sidd.)

bilmore · 12-12-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
. . .but less than what I'll spend on a really nice dinner for two.

My god. Are you serious? I don't think you could do that here if you tried.

(Well, maybe with a $350 bottle of wine.)

Hank Chinaski · 12-12-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
giving someone a hard time, for fun, for calling a $500 watch a "good value".

my watch, i think around $400, a Hamilton ventura was extravagent for me for watches. I lose them so I don't spend typically. It was a good purchase, I'm happy I got it, But agree I'm not sure it is a good value.

bilmore · 12-12-2003, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
my watch, i think around $400, a Hamilton ventura was extravagent for me for watches. I lose them so I don't spend typically. It was a good purchase, I'm happy I got it, But agree I'm not sure it is a good value.

It all goes to MR's point that my disconnect is not with the idea of buying fun toys, but with calling a fur sink a "good value".