or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Kent Wang - Affiliate thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kent Wang - Affiliate thread - Page 365

post #5461 of 5900
He's presumably not a retard, and asking for a legitimate reason.

Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to work on that assumption...
post #5462 of 5900
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericgereghty View Post

He's presumably not a retard, and asking for a legitimate reason.

Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to work on that assumption...

Whoa. Who said anything about presuming anyone was a retard? Not cool, brotha. cloud.gif
post #5463 of 5900
Your reaction to Veni's question leaves reasonable doubt...

While I've defended your interpersonal skills (or lack thereof) I can't tell if you're trolling at this point, or just cant tell how unnecessarily brusque you come off in your posts.

My take: your post leaves blindness or idiocy as the only reason for Veni's post. Would it be so hard to say "I'm fairly certain so and so is the final?"
post #5464 of 5900
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericgereghty View Post

Your reaction to Veni's question leaves reasonable doubt...

While I've defended your interpersonal skills (or lack thereof) I can't tell if you're trolling at this point, or just cant tell how unnecessarily brusque you come off in your posts.

My take: your post leaves blindness or idiocy as the only reason for Veni's post. Would it be so hard to say "I'm fairly certain so and so is the final?"

I guess I'm just not the type of person to beat around the bush. confused.gif I don't mean to come across as a jerk in my online postings, but I don't see the point in niceties for niceties' sake. I prefer clear, concise, unambiguous communication.

In regard to the discussion at hand, it seemed immediately obvious to me (and anyone who took 5 seconds to be observant) which is the trial jacket and which is the final. I'll grant that the color differences might be hard to discern when viewed on a mobile device, but besides that, consider:

ptr1988's first post contained pics of only 1 jacket and it was implied that this was his final jacket, not the trial.

In his next post, he mentioned he also included pics of the trial jacket. If the color difference between the two was not evident, one could easily discern which is which by referencing the photos in the dude's previous post. There are obvious distinctions between the two besides color. Hence the bluntness of my reply to VVVVVBJ.
post #5465 of 5900
*Dude. You have helpful insight and knowledge. Stop being an asshole. It's obviously not by accident or for good intention.
post #5466 of 5900
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaone View Post


I prefer clear, concise, unambiguous communication.

 

That's fine, but that's also not how your posts read. Any of them.

post #5467 of 5900
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaone View Post


I guess I'm just not the type of person to beat around the bush. confused.gif I don't mean to come across as a jerk in my online postings, but I don't see the point in niceties for niceties' sake. I prefer clear, concise, unambiguous communication.
 

Being nice is not precluding you from being clear or concise.

 

Another reason to be nice, or at least not, as you say 'brusque', is because this is a community. You will run into people in multiple threads, and (possibly) for multiple years. If you you keep running into these people who you (maybe not intentionally) have offended, then your experience in this forum may not be as enjoyable.

post #5468 of 5900

post #5469 of 5900
lol you guys are to sensitive, its not even a big deal. Move on
post #5470 of 5900
We're not referring to just his posts here. (Probably why it seems like an overreaction to this)
post #5471 of 5900
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaone View Post


I guess I'm just not the type of person to beat around the bush. confused.gif I don't mean to come across as a jerk in my online postings, but I don't see the point in niceties for niceties' sake. I prefer clear, concise, unambiguous communication.

In regard to the discussion at hand, it seemed immediately obvious to me (and anyone who took 5 seconds to be observant) which is the trial jacket and which is the final. I'll grant that the color differences might be hard to discern when viewed on a mobile device, but besides that, consider:

ptr1988's first post contained pics of only 1 jacket and it was implied that this was his final jacket, not the trial.

In his next post, he mentioned he also included pics of the trial jacket. If the color difference between the two was not evident, one could easily discern which is which by referencing the photos in the dude's previous post. There are obvious distinctions between the two besides color. Hence the bluntness of my reply to VVVVVBJ.

As someone who has just about mastered the art of snarky douchebaggery, allow me to say that the bolded portion of your post is exactly that: snarky douchebaggery. It's not cutting to the point, nor is it eschewing niceties for the purpose of being concise...it's just being snotty. It's totally fine it that's not your intention, but that's absolutely how it will come off. The rest of the post is just an attempt (not at all a concise one, mind you) to show how a douchey post was not, in fact, douchey at all.

 

Similarly, I don't buy the notion that your "curtness" is an attempt to be either clear or concise, consider:

 

My suggestion on how you might word your initial post would have been no different than yours, save for less than a handful of words, and nobody could have reasonably reacted at all negatively to it...nor would it have required a follow up explanation/justification.

 

If cutting to the point is truly what you're after, would it not behoove you to perhaps adopt such an approach?

post #5472 of 5900
Don't feed the llama troll. He is pulling the same stuff in every thread. It's to the point it is either intentional trolling or he is one very socially akward guy. Based on the fact he occasionally has a helpful post and how ridiculously rude other posts can be, I'm betting on intentional trolling.
post #5473 of 5900
Thread Starter 
post #5474 of 5900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post

Hiring for London

That's cool. I wish I was in the time/place to give it a whirl, sounds like a blast.
post #5475 of 5900

Here's my latest KW suit.  The picture angle is exaggerating the buttoning point, but I do think it needs to come down another 0.5 - 1.0 cm.  I'll also talk with KW about cleaning up the backs of the sleeves.  As for the shoulder blades, the pattern cannot go any narrower, so I will always need to have my tailor clean that portion up.  I may decrease the length of the pants, but I tend to like them a little longer.

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Kent Wang - Affiliate thread