Frankly, I find myself a bit confusticated, fellas. When I try to reconcile this quotation:
with this one:
I find inconsistency.
(lisapop) And Flusser is an authority on cuffs because...? (Extended silence, the chirping of crickets heard, people shrugging their shoulders in bewilderment). Flusser used to sell sweaters at Pierre Cardin before becoming the self-appointed arbiter of all things sartorial, but if you need to follow his rulings, go right ahead. Hey, it sells books, so who am I to argue.
In the first mentioned quotation, Flusser is a pisher. Quite convenient here in this thread. In the second post, Flusser is well-regarded. Of course, the second quotation is part of a thread wherein the writer used Flusser to imply untruth in my claim to have made Michael Douglas's horizontally striped shirts for the movie "Wall Street". Quite convenient there. Also convenient that, while Manton sources his information from Alan Flusser, his adversary cites "an esteemed and knowledgeable Savile Row tailor" and "Another knowledgeable, experienced tailor". While lisapop can immediately attack Manton's citation, no honest disagreement can be had with Mr. Esteemed, SeÃ±or Knowledgeable, or Sir Experienced. Hence, when faced with a choice of to whom to ascribe veracity, I am left with only one propositor whose argument is backed by something more than an intimation of possible accuracy. Which, personally, I find to be a shame. Yesterday, I thought lisapop had finally realized that advocation can be accomplished without denigration ... and thanked him for it. Today, I am sadly shrugging my shoulders in bewilderment and wondering whether this is the testimony of a man ... or the chirping of crickets.