Leather or rubber soles?

[skeen7908]

Where were you to cast shame when this was posted?

Or another interpretation - you like the arguing because you cannot stand to be questioned and won't tolerate a contrary view. You have a desperate need to be acknowledged as the final word on any shoe-related subject and get your panties most righteously wadded if someone has the temerity to point out that what you're saying doesn't really add up.  And it sure doesn't.

If that strikes you as "aggressive", well, you must live a very soft life.

Perhaps you might ask RogerP what his qualification in psychoanalysis are as well?

I am not disgustingly abusive. I am giving back what this internet tough guy likes to dish out. I cannot stand bullies in any form.

 

[RogerP]

You are an internet tough guy. I suspect you have fairly pathetic self-esteem in real life, probably picked on as a child. You desperately earn and spend money and also bluster and posture on fashion message boards, in a bid to compensate for this

Thank you skeen. The above says far more about you than it does about me. I know you don't understand that, but it does.

 

[skeen7908]

I don't even know what that means.

Did I strike a nerve?

 

[RogerP]

I don't even know what that means.

Did I strike a nerve?

1) Of course you don't.
2) Yes - my funny bone.

Watching you chuck stones in your glass house is highly amusing.

 

[DWFII]



Where were you to cast shame when this was posted?

Exactly what I was thinking. Not atypical, however.

What gives you the qualification to psycho-analyse someone you have (presumably) never met? You can disagree with someone without getting so disgustingly abusive.

Shame on you!

Talk about the kettle calling the pot...if you're going to kibitz at least be thorough. Shame on you!

The fact is...as I see it...there are people on this forum who lie in wait, looking for an opportunity to jump in with snide and derisive and contrary remarks, simply for the sake of being contrary. Not because they have any real knowledge, and certainly not because they've ever gotten their hands dirty. In another time we would have called these people gadflies. Today we call them trolls. It doesn't make any difference how many posts you have...if you're sitting under the bridge, jumping out to collect a toll anytime you hear a footstep above, you're a troll.

It's one thing to have an opinion...even if it's based on smug, self-satisfied speculation...it's another to get into a conversation and present those opinions as anything but speculation. And as in the case of our inestimable Mr. R. P. Rabbit, it's not only argument for the sake of argument, it's disrespectful to every person posting to not contribute one iota of constructive and objectively fact-based evidence to support your position...and then have the temerity to call out someone else for not contributing. It says "my opinion is better than your knowledge and what's more I don't have to explain or justify it." True enough, but it's still not just ignorant, it's arrogant.

Mr. Rabbit is simply reaping what he has sowed.

 

[RogerP]

^^^ And you complaining about snide and derisive commentary is even more hilarious than skeen.

Thanks for the chuckle - looks like a reaped some pretty good comedy.

 

[DWFII]



^^^ And you complaining about snide and derisive commentary is even more hilarious than skeen.    Thanks for the chuckle - looks like a reaped some pretty good comedy.

Anyone can go back to post #44 and see where I started and the tone I began with and see how you responded and then judge for themselves how it all came down.

And, FWIW, from where I stand your laughter sounds more like barking.

BTW, you're not the only contrarian on this forum but I am gratified to see that you recognize your own image when you see it. Dogs can't do that.

PS...I don't mind being questioned--look through all my posts, even in this thread...when people question me for the purpose of understanding or learning, I readily and respectfully answer. Every time.

But you're half right--I don't like being questioned by ignoramuses.

--

 

[nh10222]

Oh dear, at this rate the thread is going to be closed. Thanks for the shoe-related chat while it lasted lol...

 

[RogerP]

Thanks DWFIII - the laughs just keep on coming - dogs, pigs - good stuff my man!

Oh dear, at this rate the thread is going to be closed. Thanks for the shoe-related chat while it lasted lol...

Thank you nh - very good contributions throughout.

 

[DWFII]



Oh dear, at this rate the thread is going to be closed. Thanks for the shoe-related chat while it lasted lol...

Point taken...

 

[bengal-stripe]



Where were you to cast shame when this was posted?

That is equally offensive. My apologies!

I hadn't seen that, as I find the topic as boring as can be. I rather prefer a walking shoe for rough terrain with a profile-rubber sole to the hobnailed leather soles that were in use prior to the invention of the rubber sole. Equally I prefer a shoe for town to have leather soles (unless it's raining cats and dogs).

As I said before "Horses for courses" and I really cannot be worked-up about that topic.

Blame should go to those three or four individuals who have managed to inflame an old thread, which had been dormant for more than four years, with stupid generalisations.

 

[nh10222]

It doesn't hurt to revisit the fundamentals every now and then, to review our purchasing habits and boost our knowledge and understanding. I've certainly learnt more about shoes in the process, even if others feel the matter has been thrashed to death or don't think it's worthy of further discussion. Leather versus rubber is an issue that will not go away. I just ignore the parts that I think are irrelevant or boring and try to stay out of the nastiness that can erupt.

 

[venividivicibj]

The thread isn't about fundamentals anymore. It's about one person attacking a recognized expert in the field just because he had an experience that was contrary to the stated facts.

Using an anecdote is a terrible way to prove an argument. It's a basic logical fallacy. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't prove the whole argument is false.

Anyway, DFW's main point was that leather has advantages, and over time, they will come out. Maybe not right away, maybe not every time, but generally they will happen.

Now it's just an argument that is rather disgusting and petty.

 

[RogerP]

The thread isn't about fundamentals anymore. It's about one person attacking a recognized expert in the field just because he had an experience that was contrary to the stated facts.

Using an anecdote is a terrible way to prove an argument. It's a basic logical fallacy. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't prove the whole argument is false.

Anyway, DFW's main point was that leather has advantages, and over time, they will come out. Maybe not right away, maybe not every time, but generally they will happen.

Now it's just an argument that is rather disgusting and petty.

There is no question that there has been more sniping on my part than was called for. But suggesting that I have been the only one doing so is just willful blindness on your part. And DWF and his faithful supporters getting on their high horse to call me a great big meanie is truly rich. And whining that "But, but... he STARTED IT!" has an unfortunately appropriate grade 4 ring to it. The very first post by DWF in response to my statement that I had experienced none of his claimed pitfalls was to state that he had been doing this for 40 years and what I had to say didn't matter.

I stand behind my challenge to DWFs assertion that synthetic outsoles create such palplable risk of footwear mahem. It is absolutely unfounded. It is unsupported by either industry practices or customer experiences. It makes no sense. If that is an "attack" in your books, so be it. I can live with that. Really.

Ron's post said it best - I don't need to add to that. It was spot on. And he knows something about the industry, even if you wish to accept that no-one outside the ranks of industry professionals has the right to hold or express and opnion, he certainly qualifies as a contributor on the subject.

 

[RogerP]

And I've been making shoes and boots, full time, for over 40 years. Whatever you've experienced is almost unimportant---

. Maybe, and just as likely, you are just ignorant and unable to recognize what you're seeing.

Take it or leave it. Learn or wallow in ignorance.

Well, having some knowledge is always better than having none...the lack of which undoubtedly accounts for your penchant to read and imagine what is not there and has not been said.

But while we're at it...how long have you been making shoes?


Your credentials, by comparison, are what?

It is a choice, however...as I've said many times here--we are all born ignorant, there's no onus in it. That said, choosing to remain ignorant is the one surefire path to stupidity.

--

Let the Roger P. Rabbits of the world posture all they want...

You are an internet tough guy. I suspect you have fairly pathetic self-esteem in real life, probably picked on as a child. You desperately earn and spend money and also bluster and posture on fashion message boards, in a bid to compensate for this

Mr. R. P. Rabbit, it's not only argument for the sake of argument, it's disrespectful to every person posting to not contribute one iota of constructive and objectively fact-based evidence to support your position...and then have the temerity to call out someone else for not contributing. It says "my opinion is better than your knowledge and what's more I don't have to explain or justify it." True enough, but it's still not just ignorant, it's arrogant.

Mr. Rabbit is simply reaping what he has sowed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII


And, FWIW, from where I stand your laughter sounds more like barking.

BTW, you're not the only contrarian on this forum but I am gratified to see that you recognize your own image when you see it. Dogs can't do that.

But you're half right--I don't like being questioned by ignoramuses.

--