Mirage-
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2021
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 632
Are they, though? I believe only Nobilis, or almost only him, have stated they can (under some conditions) go with jeans. Most have positioned themselves somewhere in the formality scale between DWW's position and "jacket+chinos". No one, iirc, proposed oxfords with shorts or sweatpants as good.If that is your read, I find it hard to believe we are reading the same threads.
I think in general he has been quite consistent, and new detractors have risen with different attacks that have had to be answered with centering on the same argument.
Ultimately, and hilariously, the pro oxford group are the ones seeking an absolute - "Oxfords with any pants." And pivoting and pivoting again to try to get there.
But, see, you keep grouping any and all opposition to DWW's strict rule into a single camp of "Oxfords with literally anything", so that then you can ridicule that as preposterous by the opinion of most (including me), and somehow conclude DWW must therefore be right.
DWW started out saying that while Boyer does separates with oxfords, he dislikes it and think it "less bad", as he often phrased it. Or "less offensive", in the latest edition, which is even worse.
Then, you have been attempting to redefine "less bad" as meaning "fine, but suboptimal", which is not the same thing, unless you define "bad" as "absence of perfection" in which case we all dress bad, and will forever.
And in any case, I'm not convinced even your amended version is true in any meaningful sense, i.e. I do not feel there would be a clear and obvious improvement in the good looks previously mentioned, if they swapped shoes with derbies or loafers.
I liked Crompton's posts about rules and how to break them: they always advised to follow the spirit of the rule, rather than the exact stipulation of the rule, which is really what I've been proposing since the start: wear formal shoes with formal-enough outfits. Which imo includes many separates.
Putting aside the details of this specific case, I personally don't like the idea that moderation be majority-driven, or even "e-steem driven", i.e. decided by people with the most internet points in here.Apparently a few members of the pro oxford with everything camp have pissed off enough people to get banned.
I hope that is not what emptym actually meant in the following, which seems to suggest that someone can be punished simply for being unwanted by "respected regulars" rather than actually crossing some sort of line of accepted behavior.
when a good number of people express their irritation with someone, the mods warn the person to take a break (usually more than once), and the person continues. Fok has said many times that the forum is like a neighborhood bar. If a certain number of patrons, particularly respected regulars, are annoyed with someone, they can get tossed out, sometimes for a while, sometimes for good.
Last edited: