Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ Maxx. Target.

Spend $100 on the bag, donate $900 to charity??

I take it you dine at McDonald's?

Oh please...(eye roll).

Why the eye-roll? Everybody here scoffs at McDonaldses and Chillies like their food is beyond the pale. Yet 95% of you dress in the Wendies and Chillies of clothing and, more annoyingly, get outraged when someone so much as mentions that they do fine dining a few times a year.

That trade-offs you chose to make are of course perfectly fine. But you sound ridiculous when you, in essence, argue that fashion is only area where there is no correlation between price and quality and that your $50 bag is just as good as a $3500 bag.

The food I put in my body and the clothes I wear are two completely different things. I eat good food because it's healthy and has a lasting impact on my body, however despite the fact that I can afford it, I refuse to spend $1000 on something that is basically disposable like an item of clothing or bag that will be out of style next year. Do you understand the difference?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too funny that people convince themselves that those idiotic labels matter, just like they pretend that thy always wear cute little sundresses to chase kids at the playground.

It's not about the labels - people who don't follow fashion (i.e. most people) don't even know which labels are considered good. It is always on the lower (cheaper) end that logos and such are most prominent. I have people ask me all the time where I bought designer stuff (that they can't afford) because they don't recognize the designers. They just like the way it looks but don't understand that those looks cost.

Anonymous wrote:

ThatSmileyFaceGuy wrote:If it makes me a loser to think it's silly to spend 250 on a paper bag with someones name on it. Something that probably cost them 5 bucks to make, Then call me a loser.

You are a loser for posting in a fashion forum about women's purses. You are a loser for endlessly referencing some useless (and pretty cheap) bag that nobody here ever considered nor recommended. Not every attempt by even a famous designer is a gem, everybody knows this. But what you don't understand is why is that. You, in your boundless cluelessness, think that it's enough to slap a label on whatever crappy bag and it will sell. It is not so.

Designing is hard and it takes a lot of talent to think and make a great bag. Because of that, just like in everything else, in general expensive bags (items) are better than cheap bags (items). Just because you see no difference does not mean that there is no difference, just that you don't know where to look. I don't see a difference among various screwdrivers but if someone with interest and knowledge tells me that there is a difference then I accept it, rather than telling him that he is a fool for wanting something that costs $15 when $1 is just as good.

Btw, which car do you drive? Just curious.

Anonymous wrote:

ThatSmileyFaceGuy wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of which, I bought guys wranglers the other day since I needed work jeans. The pockets work! Real live functional pockets! Don't give a damn wha they look like...functional work clothing rocks.

Why are you reading the fashion forum?

Because fashion without function is pointless

Because I'm sick of women's pants without pockets that will even hold a cell phone. It is freaking ridiculous. Men's clothing manages to have nifty pockets, buttons in useful places, and is made to be tailored. At the same price point, women's clothing is cheaply made, has little fake nonfunctional pockets, and is difficult if not impossible to alter without disassembling the entire garment. Women's pants get possibly 3 inseam choices, men get them every inch or two at the most, if they don't come unhemmed to be hemmed to order.


Some of us actually work in clothing: something besides sit in an office and shuffle papers.

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think you do ok, actually. Successful men - i.e. men who can buy these bags to their wives without even bothering to think about the whole issue - are too busy to post here at work hours. You do sound like a loser trolling a fashion forum in order to pick up women. Your anger at expensive bags suggests a frustration that women want things you are not able to give them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ Maxx. Target.

Spend $100 on the bag, donate $900 to charity??

I take it you dine at McDonald's?

Oh please...(eye roll).

Why the eye-roll? Everybody here scoffs at McDonaldses and Chillies like their food is beyond the pale. Yet 95% of you dress in the Wendies and Chillies of clothing and, more annoyingly, get outraged when someone so much as mentions that they do fine dining a few times a year.

That trade-offs you chose to make are of course perfectly fine. But you sound ridiculous when you, in essence, argue that fashion is only area where there is no correlation between price and quality and that your $50 bag is just as good as a $3500 bag.

Anonymous wrote:Too funny that people convince themselves that those idiotic labels matter, just like they pretend that thy always wear cute little sundresses to chase kids at the playground.

ThatSmileyFaceGuy wrote:If it makes me a loser to think it's silly to spend 250 on a paper bag with someones name on it. Something that probably cost them 5 bucks to make, Then call me a loser.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think you do ok, actually. Successful men - i.e. men who can buy these bags to their wives without even bothering to think about the whole issue - are too busy to post here at work hours. You do sound like a loser trolling a fashion forum in order to pick up women. Your anger at expensive bags suggests a frustration that women want things you are not able to give them.

I don't think he sounds like a loser because he's pointing out a $250 paper bag. I thought it was funny when I clicked on the link myself. I think it's a stretch to say that he's angry or frustrated.

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think you do ok, actually. Successful men - i.e. men who can buy these bags to their wives without even bothering to think about the whole issue - are too busy to post here at work hours. You do sound like a loser trolling a fashion forum in order to pick up women. Your anger at expensive bags suggests a frustration that women want things you are not able to give them.

ThatSmileyFaceGuy wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ThatSmileyFaceGuy wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only $250, but looks like much less!

http://www.ln-cc.com/invt/jil0110027car

This one is already sold out!

250 for a paper bag. You people can't be serious.

Stop trolling. Nobody suggested that bag - it was posted by some cheapo convinced her $50 bag looks great.

How is it trolling to point out the silliness of a 250 dollar paper bag with some designers name on it THAT THEY SOLD OUT OF so some fool bought it.
How is it trolling to look on in wonder of people that are willing to spend 500 on a pair of jeans. Sure I do ok even for this area, but I would rather invest or use that money on life expereinces.

Anonymous wrote:

ThatSmileyFaceGuy wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only $250, but looks like much less!

http://www.ln-cc.com/invt/jil0110027car

This one is already sold out!

250 for a paper bag. You people can't be serious.

Stop trolling. Nobody suggested that bag - it was posted by some cheapo convinced her $50 bag looks great.

Anonymous wrote:

ThatSmileyFaceGuy wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of which, I bought guys wranglers the other day since I needed work jeans. The pockets work! Real live functional pockets! Don't give a damn wha they look like...functional work clothing rocks.

Why are you reading the fashion forum?

Because fashion without function is pointless

Because I'm sick of women's pants without pockets that will even hold a cell phone. It is freaking ridiculous. Men's clothing manages to have nifty pockets, buttons in useful places, and is made to be tailored. At the same price point, women's clothing is cheaply made, has little fake nonfunctional pockets, and is difficult if not impossible to alter without disassembling the entire garment. Women's pants get possibly 3 inseam choices, men get them every inch or two at the most, if they don't come unhemmed to be hemmed to order.


Some of us actually work in clothing: something besides sit in an office and shuffle papers.