or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The perfect tuxedo except for one thing...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The perfect tuxedo except for one thing... - Page 9

post #121 of 142
I don't have a problem with you, as I thought I'd made clear.

I do have a bit of a problem with the way you sometimes proffer your theories as if they're canon law; and when someone disputes one such theory, you almost invariably call them obtuse, or insinuate the same (as you just did to me). (Which is what if not an ad hom attack?) Surely you're aware of how the peg on which you hang your weighty theories is sometimes very fragile and spurious indeed?

I'm not going go further because, frankly, fuck citing specific examples and having an argument over nothing. All I'm saying: a little humility, please.
post #122 of 142
Also, I love how on the one hand you argue vehemently that your personal life is irrelevant, and on the other hand can't resist putting scare quotes around "better"!
post #123 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Oh, I did call you an idiot, but that was the least I could do after your hopelessly vacuous ad hominem tirade.

Tirade? Ha.

Calling it like I see it, and even if ad hominem far from irrelevant to the subject being discussed.
post #124 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Is this seriously still being debated?

Under no circumstances should a dinner jacket have a center vent. The historical, customary reasons aren't even important. Single vents are generally sub-optimal features used on cheaper RTW jackets to save manufacturing costs and make alterations easier. Hence, they don't belong on a dinner jacket, which should be an inherently nice piece of clothing (or do its best to appear so). If you want vents, side vents are the correct choice.

Before some Ivy/Trad freak chimes: yes, single vents are appropriate for jackets in the American Trad style. But that's really not relevant here.

Mind you, the thread was being constructively debated, until you jump in with something as openminded (haha) as the above. Are you suprised you trigger arguments, or that a certain % of us don't like you?

You say its ridiculous, you say it's not up for debate, you call a subset of the membership (does not include me) freaks, you say they're not relevant. Great attitude, really welcoming, not superior or aloof at all.

Then you act as though someone saying (me):
// You can dress up your statements as fancily as you like, but it sounds so much like "Paul Stuart and Brooks and Bond etc is stupid, but Rubinacci is good! I wear Rubinacci! I am good!" //
Was some drastic offense?

Anyway, I'm sure you'll be able to come back with some retort, but you should look inward. Don't kid yourself. I hugely prefer to avoid this nonsense but, but tire of seeing you bully people.
post #125 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post

I don't have a problem with you, as I thought I'd made clear.

I do have a bit of a problem with the way you sometimes proffer your theories as if they're canon law; and when someone disputes one such theory, you almost invariably call them obtuse, or insinuate the same (as you just did to me). (Which is what if not an ad hom attack?) Surely you're aware of how the peg on which you hang your weighty theories is sometimes very fragile and spurious indeed?

I'm not going go further because, frankly, fuck citing specific examples and having an argument over nothing. All I'm saying: a little humility, please.

Clearly, you do have a problem with me. When the fuck did I insinuate you were obtuse? I was addressing your false characterization of me, which had nothing to do with anything other than the fact you wanted to unleash your pent-up bitterness. Apparently, you don't believe it's my place to question you, as you seem to find it intrinsically offensive. So, yes, some humility would be appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post

Also, I love how on the one hand you argue vehemently that your personal life is irrelevant, and on the other hand can't resist putting scare quotes around "better"!

You know what, you do have to be stricken with a special sort of prejudice or idiocy to confuse questioning another person's ad hominem comment as ad hominem itself. What happened to your "better" education?

To spell it out more plainly, since you seem to need it that way, the poster I was speaking to had responded to your commentary insinuating that I use my education as some sort of premise in argument. He chimed in that he happened to be one of the sorts that disprove my supposed claim to educational superiority. Hence, he introduced the question of his education into the discussion. Not me. See how that works? Not once in this thread, or any other, have I used my schooling to make a point. You introduced it here. The other poster picked it up. I called you out on it.

You will no doubt accuse me of speaking condescendingly to you. And I am. But the record clearly shows it is not unprovoked and not initiated on my end.
post #126 of 142
Frankly, objectively speaking, Foo is right on that specific count, and I really think that, today, there's no real debate about whether to have a single vent or not on a dinner jacket. Logically speaking, I'm not convinced that the remarks about vents is a metaphor for 'but Rubinacci is good! I wear Rubinacci! I am good!". He does give a credible example by comparing bespoke clothing to RTW, and it might be the inherent nature of such a comparison that necessarily throws into sharp relief the distinction between the clothes snob and the average Joe the plumber who doesn't give two hoots (or cannot afford to do so), and thus, invokes a sense of 'class' if you will.

However, I do agree that Foo could try to put his remarks through more tactfully
Edited by bboysdontcryy - 3/26/13 at 7:01pm
post #127 of 142

lurker[1].gif

post #128 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie View Post

Mind you, the thread was being constructively debated, until you jump in with something as openminded (haha) as the above. Are you suprised you trigger arguments, or that a certain % of us don't like you?

You say its ridiculous, you say it's not up for debate, you call a subset of the membership (does not include me) freaks, you say they're not relevant. Great attitude, really welcoming, not superior or aloof at all.

Then you act as though someone saying (me):
// You can dress up your statements as fancily as you like, but it sounds so much like "Paul Stuart and Brooks and Bond etc is stupid, but Rubinacci is good! I wear Rubinacci! I am good!" //
Was some drastic offense?

Anyway, I'm sure you'll be able to come back with some retort, but you should look inward. Don't kid yourself. I hugely prefer to avoid this nonsense but, but tire of seeing you bully people.

I reasoned with you why single vents are bad. I reasoned with you that your approach, which was to validate anything on the basis that it has been done before, was hopelessly destructive to the very notion of black tie. I didn't throw down a fucking commandment. It is plain as day in my commentary. Yet, you resorted to re-characterizing my arguments as disgustingly snobby assertions of superiority. So don't fucking tell me to look inward. You picked a fight with me and you got one.
post #129 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyMac View Post

lurker%5B1%5D.gif

Yeah shog[1].gif
post #130 of 142

This is the most sophisticated language I've ever seen used in an Internet nerdrage war. lurker[1].gif

post #131 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

I reasoned with you why single vents are bad. I reasoned with you that your approach, which was to validate anything on the basis that it has been done before, was hopelessly destructive to the very notion of black tie. I didn't throw down a fucking commandment. It is plain as day in my commentary. Yet, you resorted to re-characterizing my arguments as disgustingly snobby assertions of superiority. So don't fucking tell me to look inward. You picked a fight with me and you got one.

Haha. You're so ridiculous.
post #132 of 142
Can we DT this thread now... confused.gif
post #133 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

When the fuck did I insinuate you were obtuse?
...
But the record clearly shows it is not unprovoked and not initiated on my end.

The record of the conversation between you and me shows you initiating the ad hominem by implying that I'm too stupid to understand the pretentious bollocks you wrote once about Modernist furniture. You wrote:
Quote:
If by "embarrassing," you mean for those who didn't understand, then yes.
Sure, I initiated the conversation, but I was acerbically criticizing your theory, not you. Your response was, for all intents and purposes, to call me obtuse. I can take an insult, but I thought it would be fun to treat you with your own medicine, by launching a blindside into your education and intelligence. It's not nice to be condescended to, is it? You then erupted into a tirade of butt-hurt, which included another series of remarks about my low intelligence; e.g.:
Quote:
You know what, you do have to be stricken with a special sort of ... idiocy to confuse ...
,
and,
Quote:
To spell it out more plainly, since you seem to need it that way ...
.

Now, frankly, I don't mind your insults. Fire away. I'm a big boy. But, I was simply calling out a perennial feature of your arguments on SF: you call people idiots when they disagree with you; or if they're lucky, you just patronize them as if they're somehow worse than you. Maybe it's the product of your macho profession and the dog-eat-dog city in which you live.

In any case, it comes across badly, and it absolutely detracts from my opinion of your stylishness. Since you're here in pursuit of style, I thought I might point that out to you. Alas, in a moment of foolish confidence I thought you might deign to listen to my opinion. I still think my point is valid, but you may as well disregard it since I'm such a lowly cretin. (Oh wait, isn't than an ad hominem fallacy?)
post #134 of 142
I think this thread calls for the creation of another thread:

"Best leather gloves for challenging another member to a duel"

My vote will be for Bloomingdale's house brand, but invariably someone will insist on thousand dollar Hermes gloves for this purpose...
post #135 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimelesStyle View Post

I think this thread calls for the creation of another thread:

"Best leather gloves for challenging another member to a duel"

My vote will be for Bloomingdale's house brand, but invariably someone will insist on thousand dollar Hermes gloves for this purpose...

In green, no doubt. But we can't talk about that at this time. They would be perfect for pistols at dawn. nod[1].gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The perfect tuxedo except for one thing...