quote:

---

...a dicky ticker...

---

quote:

---

...chuck a wobbler...

---

God, I love you Aussies. If I weren't tired and half in the bag, I'd post these over in "made up words".

Every time I see some git in a drover's coat walking around Chicago (or the Northern suburbs of), I want to see if it'll repel vomit.

How gawdawful pretentious can you be? Add a frickin' cowboy/aussie/wide-brimmed hat and I'm reaching for my revolver.

******

FP, amen on the sofa pillows. Completely useless. They're usually too stiff for using as a pillow when you're lying on the sofa watchin' teevee. Hell, you spend more time trying to get comfortable than actually watching teevee.

Whenever I go to someone's house who has those on their sofa, I throw 'em on the floor when I sit down. Well, only at people's houses that I know well. I'm not a complete asshole. Not completely.

Hey, welcome back, doggo! It's been a few days.

quote:

---

quote: ...a dicky ticker...



quote: ...chuck a wobbler...



God, I love you Aussies. If I weren't tired and half in the bag, I'd post these over in "made up words".

---

Like I said about misty..."I've always loved your phrasing!"

Hey SC. Yeah, busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

anything 'designer', obviously.
except macs, and so on
this being the wgb

quote:

---

Originally posted by M:
anything 'designer', obviously.
except macs, and so on
this being the wgb

---

firstly, i'd like to say that an item shouldn't be considered undesireable based solely on being a 'designer' item.

secondly, define 'designer'. Rolex? Audi? Converse? Levis? Zippo? Nikon?

quote:

---

firstly, i'd like to say that an item shouldn't be considered undesireable based solely on being a 'designer' item

---

NOW you are getting too theoretical. Things that are designer, but desirable, are not designer. Is that complicated?

Designer and not designer at the same time? Almost sounds like some kind of Zen, including the absence of desire.

designer + undesireable = designer

designer =+ desireable = not designer

ok. got it.

I think it's all subjective, charmakarmacat. I try not to buy anything based on the idea of form over function, unless the function of that item is specifically just to look good. If it looks good too, then bonus.

Spent the last three weeks telling a mate of mine not to buy an LTD Viper guitar just cause it looks "good". One of the reasons I don't like macs, either.

Things like jeans - why the hell would you pay $300 for a pair of jeans? Undesirable!

you're not wrong, lithos. what i'm getting at, is that there are brands out there that are more expensive because they are made out of better material or construction, whatever. i'd hate to think that people are now anti-label, simply because the evils of paper tiger advertising are more generally percieved.
sorry, M, i'm sort of singling you out here, but a statement like this

quote:

---

anything 'designer', obviously. except macs, and so on this being the wgb

---

rather spooks me. i'm not suggesting that folks here are shunning labels because Cayce does it, no not at all, but i must admit to being a little overwhelmed in many threads by the amount of anti-label philosophy that occurs while members also discuss the extreme precision of their tastes in everything from beer brands to computer software to guitar models etc.
perhaps my rather too large fear of being-misunderstood-thereby-evoking-disclaimer-like-statements-wherever-possible stirs me to react to things folks post. things that very likely, are confident enough or whatever, thereby not feeling the need to say what they didn't say.
or maybe i just like being the devil's advocate. you all can decide.

[scans around nervously for expressions i can misinterpret therby causing an unnecessary twitch]

[twitch]

Everything has a designer. Only some things are better designed.

I read ye, charma, not to worry. And I think it's more anti-label silliness than anti-label philosophy. I think that clothing is pretty much the only thing it applies to around here, as there are plenty of firearm, guitar, and kitchen appliance snobs running around on this board. Myself very much included.

And even as far as clothing is concerned, I must admit that while my clothing purchases are label-neutral, my favorite suit is also my most expensive one, complete with "designer" label inside the coat.

I think most folks here would say that a thing which has desirability ascribed to it solely on the basis of its being "designer" is not desirable. Example: those non-descript handbags that women carry, indistinguishable from each other except for the infinitely-repeated little designer logos or names that cover every square millimeter of the bag's surface. If you're paying extra money only because of the label, then I'd say that's silly, unless your concern is that the labeled good will have better resale value later on down the road.

quote:

---

Originally posted by charmakarmacat:
i must admit to being a little overwhelmed in many threads by the amount of anti-label philosophy that occurs while members also discuss the extreme precision of their tastes in everything from beer brands to computer software to guitar models etc.

---

I think the argument is one of why someone should
be a free advertisement. This doesn't mean that
people shouldn't and don't have certain
brand/model preferences.

Along those lines, then...

Decals of sneaker company logos in the back windows of cars.

Also...

Decals of Calvin pissing on a rival auto manufacturer's logo in the back windows of cars.

Jesus fish decals on cars. Especially the ones that are eating the cheeky "Darwin" fish that has legs, only the Jesus fish says "Truth" inside it.

Cars in general.

i saw a girl in mullumbimby (hippy/alt. culture centre) one NYE with the nike thing tattooed above her ankle. maybe her parents were hippies and it was a backlash.

quote:

---

Originally posted by misty:
i saw a girl in mullumbimby (hippy/alt. culture centre) one NYE with the nike thing _tattooed above her ankle_. maybe her parents were hippies and it was a backlash.

---

I hear that for a while, Nike was paying & giving discounts to anyone who got a swoosh tattoo. One of the more disturbing ideas in business lately, but not as bad as some...

Any sort of physical qualifications? I'm wondering what the advertising value of a 350 pound 50 year old woman with no front teeth is.

"I'm sorry, but we only pay young sexy people to wear our tats."

I'm wondering, though, really CKC, and I know where you're coming from, if a pair of $500 Diesel Jeans are better constructed than my fifty buck Jeans West ones.

I'm going out on a hypothesis here, and I'm generalising, but with trendy clothing, since fashion changes every season and so every year (according to the fashion laws and marketeers) you're meant to buy new clothes, is there any incentive to make 'em last long?

Granted, a lot of my clothes are "trendy" brands, but most were bought on sale (hey, something's not right about paying eighty bucks for a t-shirt with a inch-square logo on it) or in Bangkok. Would I spend my time unpicking seams and sending my jeans to a locksmith ("Yeah, couldn't get these bastards open...")? Nope. But I wouldn't be caught dead in an upmarket clothes store. Fat people are allergic to places. You just get the feeling everyones praying for you to leave, you fat bastard, you're wrecking our demographics, and you should come back with Mr. Mundial and "cleanse them all..."

Ahem.

Anyway, you want cheap brand name clothes, got to Bangkok. Head to MBK or any of a dozen back alley stores and you'll find stuff that fell off the back of a truck, and was found, ironically, by the same guy responsible for making sure it got on that truck. It's a beautiful city.