# Mark Zuckerberg Hoodie is a Mark of Immaturity - article & comment



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

Mark Zuckerberg is known for having arrived late for a meeting with prospective investor Sequoia Capital and giving a less-than-serious pitch while wearing pajamas.

https://go.bloomberg.com/tech-deals...s-hoodie-a-mark-of-immaturity-analyst-says-2/

Many commenters on this article stressed that Zuckerberg has the right to dress as he pleases, because he created a company with great value. Many compared him to Steve Jobs' jeans and black turtle neck.

I say that men who create great companies, rarely stoop to wearing childish garb like hoodies or pajamas. Effectively, Zuckerberg is telling everyone he meets, "**** you. I created a great company, so I make the rules of dress".

This is not an accident of eccentricity, but a deliberate choice. Will this attitude lead to a dictatorial style of dealing with shareholders or investors? Very likely. Just because you can do something and get away with it, doesn't mean that you should do it.

Ed


----------



## roman totale XVII (Sep 18, 2009)

I know that Rule #1 of the Internet is 'never read the comments section', but doing so makes tough viewing for anyone who remotely cares about clothes and their personal appearance...


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

I don't think he gives a rat's ass what we or any blogger think...nor should he. Ultimately, as long as he delivers shareholder value, he can wear whatever he wants, despite the antiquated views of some observers.


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

I've worked for 6 Atlanta software, online finance or online marketing start-ups. Typically these tech company founders & partners wore business casual or occasionally suits for client presentations or sales meetings. 

None wore anything as sloppy as Zuckerberg's attire.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

edhillpr said:


> I've worked for 6 Atlanta software, online finance or online marketing start-ups. Typically these tech company founders & partners wore business casual or occasionally suits for client presentations or sales meetings.
> 
> None wore anything as sloppy as Zuckerberg's attire.


I see. And the value of those startups vs. FB is...???


----------



## Atterberg (Mar 11, 2012)

It gives the impression that he's full of himself -- which I believe he is, so at least it's congruent.


----------



## Ayrton (Mar 4, 2012)

Comparing Steve Jobs to Zuckerberg is where I stopped reading...


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Zuckerberg dresses like a HOODlum and Facebook is Big Brother: https://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook


----------



## Atterberg (Mar 11, 2012)

Just another reason not to use facebook. I don't find it makes it any harder for me to stay in touch with people, either.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Atterberg said:


> Just another reason not to use facebook. I don't find it makes it any harder for me to stay in touch with people, either.


Not with the people you want to stay in touch with, no...


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

smmrfld said:


> I don't think he gives a rat's ass what we or any blogger think...nor should he. Ultimately, as long as he delivers shareholder value, he can wear whatever he wants, despite the antiquated views of some observers.


Then why do *YOU* belong to a forum consisting of members concerned with such matters as appropriate dress and comportment? Let us just wear what we want. Maybe show up to a meeting in a barrel.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

smmrfld said:


> I see. And the value of those startups vs. FB is...???


You are completely missing the point. Having wealth - earned, inherited, or questionably acquired (not sure which is true in Zuckerberg's case) - does not mean one can do whatever they wish. Some attributes are eternal (integrity, kindness, and many more), and Zuckerberg's embarrassingly poor taste in attire isn't excused by his wealth.

If he showed up for dinner at your home naked from the waist down, would you excuse such indecent behavior, too?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'd at least discourage him from sitting on anything upholstered - - - -


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'd at least discourage him from sitting on anything upholstered - - - -


I hear it's tough getting skidmarks out of suede :biggrin:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

smmrfld said:


> I don't think he *gives a rat's ass *what we or any blogger think...nor should he. Ultimately, as long as he delivers shareholder value, he can wear whatever he wants, despite the antiquated views of some observers.


Maybe we can change the name of the forum from AAAC to WGARAAC.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Odd...can't seem to find any examples of him wearing a barrel, but if that's what you want to extrapolate from his manner of dress (which hasn't seemed to impair his success at all), then that's certainly your right.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Again, quite a stretch when you extrapolate showing up naked as a guest from his wearing of a hoodie, but you're certainly entitled to your fantasies.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Brio1 said:


> Then why do *YOU* belong to a forum consisting of members concerned with such matters as appropriate dress and comportment? Let us just wear what we want. Maybe show up to a meeting in a barrel.


While I have no concern at all about your questioning my participation here, over which you have absolutely no influence at all, I will note that what some feel is appropriate dress and comportment is by no means universal and certainly hasn't been a hindrance to his ability to connect with those who matter to him and his company. Further, I kinda doubt that an astute institutional or other serious investor will let their FB strategy be dictated by a hoodie. Thanks for the input - it's been entertaining.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

smmrfld said:


> I see. And the value of those startups vs. FB is...???


What does the value have to do with dress accordingly/appropriately?


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Regarding the comparison between Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs, there has been speculation that Jobs suffered from koumpnophobia, i.e., a fear of buttons, and that this explains both his clothes and his designs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Morey3#Famous_People_and_Koumpnophobia

Perhaps Zuckerberg has a similar affliction, but it's unlikely. The more likely explanation is that he dresses in hoodies, etc., because he wants to project an image of independence from Wall Street. Could be a smart move for all we know -- maybe the 'renegade CEO' appeals to lots of people. Certainly has worked for Facebook, Apple, and Virgin. And it's ironic - the casual/sloppy clothes end up helping _elevate_ the significance of Zuckerberg, Jobs and Branson, by making them seem uniquely independent-minded.

So the bottom line is that the hoodies, etc. are just as much a uniform as a suit and tie. A uniform for fighting a different, albeit related, kind of battle.


----------



## lbv2k (Feb 16, 2010)

smmrfld said:


> I see. And the value of those startups vs. FB is...???


You clearly got it all wrong


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

smmrfld said:


> Again, quite a stretch when you extrapolate showing up naked as a guest from his wearing of a hoodie, but you're certainly entitled to your fantasies.


Your inability to understand my very elemental point is not unexpected. Regarding fantasies, it is you who seems to be fixated on Zuckerberg - I guess the hoodie and pajamas can cause "man crushes" on those predisposed to hero-worship...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'd at least discourage him from sitting on anything upholstered - - - -


Very nuanced, and very funny!


----------



## nerdykarim (Dec 13, 2005)

edhillpr said:


> I've worked for 6 Atlanta software, online finance or online marketing start-ups. Typically these tech company founders & partners wore business casual or occasionally suits for client presentations or sales meetings.
> 
> None wore anything as sloppy as Zuckerberg's attire.


The scene in Atlanta is dramatically different from the scene in the Valley, though, from my experience as an MBA student having visited startups in both geographic locations. From both a business standpoint (valuation of pre-revenue companies) and a cultural standpoint (formality of dress, generally). Even when I visited T1 VC offices on Sand Hill Road (just to visit; not to pitch), I don't recall anyone wearing a jacket or tie (except for myself...and I probably won't bring a tie next time I'm in the Bay Area).

If nothing else, it's interesting to note the geographic location of the various posters in this thread.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

edhillpr said:


> Many commenters on this article stressed that Zuckerberg has the right to dress as he pleases, because he created a company with great value. Many compared him to Steve Jobs' jeans and black turtle neck.


Hugh Heffner is another one that springs to mind.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Julian Schnabel also occasionally wears pajamas:


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

What would be an error is to interpret his gear as a disregard of style. On the contrary, it holds style in high regard and chooses certain items with stylistic deliberateness. Given the person's high profile, it even attempts to set style. There is the no-style of casual Fridays, which is the best argument for an office dress code. And there's the hoodie style of a certain demographic. (Isn't MZ too old now for that? Just saying.) Style is language and, therefore, says something. Some here see something unpleasant, others see a successful independence that makes proper dress irrelevant. And others would see a political statement, given the recent polemic surrounding hoodies. Whatever the signification, MZ's dress is as much as or even more of a statement than Trad style.


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

NerdyKarim,
Good insight. Maybe its the Valley culture versus the Atlanta culture. Some of these ATL companies, allowed programmers who wore shorts and t-shirts to work. Maybe some people like to play the rebel CEO. Zuck can wear what he wants. But it still looks like hell to me.


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> I see. And the value of those startups vs. FB is...???


It's not about the value of the company, its about how young Zuckerberg is. He has never had a job where he _had_ to dress nicely, so he has never _had _to learn how to do so, or why it is important to _some _people. He dropped straight out of university and has been his own boss since.

It is clear to me that he dresses how he does because that reflects his value system, just as I do. I didn't wear pyjama pants to university, and I _do _wear a suit when the occasion permits, just for fun.


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

Wow. Julian Schnabel looks bad in pajamas. He just doesn't have the look to pull that off.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Slow news day was it? Moving on to more important things....


----------



## some_dude (Nov 9, 2008)

When Steve Jobs was Zuckerberg's age, he dressed rather well. In fact, I think a strong case could be made that Steve Jobs always dressed well (at least for public appearances), but not always in keeping with the preferences of most members of this forum.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

MikeDT said:


> Slow news day was it? Moving on to more important things....


Got any better suggestions?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I must interject here in definite terms.
Look, the bottom line is this, if you look like a schlub in a given situation compared to those around you then you are a schlub! 

Doesn't matter if you've made gazillions or if you own your own company, you're still a schlub. 

And your lack of respect for those around you dressed appropriately is compounded by the fact that as a successful company owner & multi-millionare you somehow feel that your success and money give you the right to diss those around you by turning up looking like a schlub!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Right on. If he had enough respect to wear a coat and tie for President Obama (albeit still with jeans and sneakers), couldn't he at least do the same for the people who might help his business? Not rocket science. At most, those investors would be in a suit and tie. At worst, a sport coat without tie.

Young Steve Jobs had it right. The smile and stylish hair showed he was approachable, the suit and tie showed he meant business.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Got any better suggestions?


It's like "OMG!!! Zuck is wearing a hoodie!!..the sky is falling...the sky is falling!"

Perhaps he sees suits as like, the establishment, old school, evil empire, if you will. The opposite of what he's trying to convey Facebook as being.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

... this is a clothing forum. What are you expecting?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

MikeDT said:


> The opposite of what he's trying to convey Facebook as being.


He hasn't succeeded then, because everyone knows or at least everyone should know that Facebook is a multi-billion dollar business. And also most people know that it isn't a laidback, relaxed envrionment on facebook but a very demanding, stressful, regulated, supervised and data-monitoring environment.


----------



## lbv2k (Feb 16, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I must interject here in definite terms.
> Look, the bottom line is this, if you look like a schlub in a given situation compared to those around you then you are a schlub!
> 
> Doesn't matter if you've made gazillions or if you own your own company, you're still a schlub.
> ...


very well said sir !


----------



## lbv2k (Feb 16, 2010)

Jovan said:


> ... this is a clothing forum. What are you expecting?


My thoughts exactly


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I must interject here in definite terms.
> Look, the bottom line is this, if you look like a schlub in a given situation compared to those around you then you are a schlub!
> 
> Doesn't matter if you've made gazillions or if you own your own company, you're still a schlub.
> ...


Couldn't have stated it better myself. Well done.:icon_cheers:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

edhillpr said:


> Just because you can do something and get away with it, doesn't mean that you should do it.
> 
> Ed


Words to live by.


----------



## Claybuster (Aug 29, 2007)

lbv2k said:


> My thoughts exactly


It makes me laugh when someone posts a criticism or comment about someone's lack of appropriate dress and then others become agitated and staunchly defend the right of anyone to dress anyway one wants in any given situation (which, of course, they can). I don't know about you, but I am a member of this fine forum to learn how to be sartorially appropriate for all occasions as best I can. It amazes me how defensive some people get when an obvious point such as Zuckerberg's lack of knowledge of how to dress is brought out. It doesn't matter how much money the guy has, he dresses inappropriate for certain occasions. That is fact. Not opinion...fact. If he wasn't a gazillionaire and worked at the mall, he would still dress the same way. More evidence that money doesn't make the man...style does.


----------



## stmoore1 (Jun 23, 2011)

I would just like to interject that the only thing Jobs and Zuckerberg have in common is CEO status at a tech company. It really grinds my gears when people compare Jobs to actual engineers. Jobs was a design guru, which means he holds style and image in much higher regard than most software engineers.

A more accurate comparison would be to contrast Zuckerberg and Bill Gates (Forbes):



> When young Bill Gates was about to take Microsoft public, a PR consultant was said to have nearly wrestled him to the ground to ditch his patented floppy sweater for a well-tailored suit.


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

OK. Relax. The problem is solved. Marketers have launched the executive pinstripe hoodie.
https://blogs.wsj.com/runway/2012/05/10/for-zuckerberg-types-executive-pinstripe-hoodies/?mod=e2fb


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

If the kids want to wear those as an "ironic" piece (That word... they keep on saying it. I do not think it means what they think it means.) out in the streets, fine, but there's no way that's going to gain any traction in the workplace.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Jovan said:


> If the kids want to wear those as an "ironic" piece (That word... they keep on saying it. I do not think it means what they think it means.) out in the streets, fine, but there's no way that's going to gain any traction in the workplace.


Exactly. And the ironic generation simply exists because they can't be arsed to take life seriously. And like you said I don't think half of them know what ironic actually means. Wearing an old trenchcoat "ironically" as the hipsters say, is only an ironic statement if said coat is worn in a context that makes it ironic.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

It's more courageous to wear a fedora, three piece suit, or other items like that and _own_ it rather than say, "Oh, I'm just being ironic."


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Jovan said:


> It's more courageous to wear a fedora, three piece suit, or other items like that and _own_ it rather than say, "Oh, I'm just being ironic."


My view exactly, and that is what I do.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL...and what of the "streakers" of 1960's and 1970's fame, who rushed through significant encounters of their lives, clad in absolutely nothing at all and exposing their junk to the 'ever critical eyes of the world!' Mark Zuckerberg's misguided sartorial adventurism had nothing over those intrepid hero's. Bwahaha, bwahaha!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

If I were not the sensitive type, I might suggest getting him a bag of skittles and an iced tea, then let nature runs its course. :devil:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Wearing an old trenchcoat "ironically" as the hipsters say, is only an ironic statement if said coat is worn in a context that makes it ironic.


Even so, there is nothing ironic about juxtaposition!!


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

MikeDT said:


> It's like "OMG!!! Zuck is wearing a hoodie!!..the sky is falling...the sky is falling!"
> 
> Perhaps he sees suits as like, the establishment, old school, evil empire, if you will. The opposite of what he's trying to convey Facebook as being.


Hi Mike, How is China?

Everybody seems to be missing ( or maybe I missed that you guys didn't miss ) the fact that the kid is advertising facebook on his hoodie. He had gotten millions worth of free mention of facebook and himself, which is becoming a brand, and each time you look at a pic of him you see facebook icons on the hoodie. It's genius.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Jovan said:


> That word... they keep on saying it. I do not think it means what they think it means.


Let me explain...there's no time. Let me sum up!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> If I were not the sensitive type, I might suggest getting him a bag of skittles and an iced tea, then let nature runs its course. :devil:


Now _that's _genius!


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

CuffDaddy said:


> If I were not the sensitive type, I might suggest getting him a bag of skittles and an iced tea, then let nature runs its course. :devil:


I too had rather the same notion. It would be rather hilarious if Zuckerberg also got plugged for his hoodie!


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

For centuries, the way one dressed represented one's social status, one's self-respect, and one's respect for others in a given setting.

Pirate captains dressed like Captain Hook years after that style went out in Europe because as pirate captains they wished to command respect but as pirates they were forbidden by polite society from dressing like people with their wealth and power.

Scarlett O'Hara was forced to go to Ashley's birthday party in a red dress covered with beads and feathers because Rhett wanted her to be forced to call attention to her wealth and beauty. Melanie, Scarlett's only true friend, welcomed her with the same affection whether she were dressed like Prissy or like Belle Watling.

Somewhere along the way young rich people, who have the money to set style and the inexperience to try, decided that dressing like the boy who cleans the pool would be a hoot at the country club, and turned everything upside down. The person having a realtor show him apartments in Manhattan dressed to the nines is labelled a poseur, while someone dressed like they were running through the Burger King drivethrough before picking up their kids is assumed to be the "real deal."

Also, regardless of what one thinks of the facts as revealed in the Trayvon Martin case, it's in poor taste to suggest that Mr. Zuckerburg be shot.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> If I were not the sensitive type, I might suggest getting him a bag of skittles and an iced tea, then let nature runs its course. :devil:


It simply amazes me that the mods let this sort of stuff remain on the site. Really, this is humorous to you?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

smmrfld said:


> It simply amazes me that the mods let this sort of stuff remain on the site. Really, this is humorous to you?


I'm still chuckling.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Actually, I don't think it's funny at all. That sort of humour isn't acceptable.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Oh, goodness. I defer, of course, to the judgment of the moderators, but I obviously am not seriously advocating that Mr. Zuckerberg be shot. The humor is that the same garment in one context led one person to conclude that the wearer was a criminal, but in another context is the trademark of a billionaire. This absurdity is heightened by the fact that, in the former case, there was the addition of skittles and an iced tea, two of the least threatening items available. This kind of irreconcilable incongruity is what not-slapstick, non-wordplay humor is made of.

Having now dissected the frog, I leave the choice about whether to be offended in the hands of the reader.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Well I have learned several new things from reading this thread and looking up links and so forth.

Horizontal corduroys -- got to have some! ! !
The Stanford Review (eh my folks went there so I have a small interest in keeping up)
Pinstripe hoodies
Rene Girard 
Facebook is Big Brother

Plus I finally clicked over to the blog of our site member who lives in China, how interesting!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

From the film _Savanah _;' When they talk about nouveau riche its the riche part that counts'.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Oh, goodness. I defer, of course, to the judgment of the moderators, but I obviously am not seriously advocating that Mr. Zuckerberg be shot. The humor is that the same garment in one context led one person to conclude that the wearer was a criminal, but in another context is the trademark of a billionaire. This absurdity is heightened by the fact that, in the former case, there was the addition of skittles and an iced tea, two of the least threatening items available. This kind of irreconcilable incongruity is what not-slapstick, non-wordplay humor is made of.
> 
> Having now dissected the frog, I leave the choice about whether to be offended in the hands of the reader.


It's a pretty sensitive subject right now, so I think it's best we stay clear of making jokes about it.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Jovan said:


> It's a pretty sensitive subject right now, so I think it's best we stay clear of making jokes about it.


While I certainly understand your point, Jovan, I hope one day that everyone becomes sensitive to the unreported aspects of interracial crime. For instance, in New York City, 98% of shootings are committed by blacks (mostly) and Hispanics. Nationally, blacks are _*seven times*_ more likely to commit murder than members of other races. In addition, black-on-white violent crime occurs _*40 times(!)*_ more often than white-on-black violent crime. Yet, Hollywood, the recording industry, and the media don't seem to want to be sensitive to _that_...

End of sermon. How 'bout those Brooks Brothers paisley hoodies, huh?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Not helping.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Jovan said:


> It's a pretty sensitive subject right now, so I think it's best we stay clear of making jokes about it.


I understand and respect that view, but don't share it. We're now weeks removed from the Martin shooting. I assume none of his relatives frequent this board. And I'm not even sure how the joke would be offensive, as it certainly didn't suggest anything derogatory about him. Jokes that are fundamentally and genuinely mean-spirited (especially towards those in a position of weakness) can be offensive; jokes that are just "about" a topic that some deem sensitive? Those just tend to be funny.

Anyway, I respect your right to have a different sensibility. You're a fairly rational guy, so I'm not going to say you're nuts or a wuss. I'm just going to say I don't agree.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> I understand and respect that view, but don't share it. We're now weeks removed from the Martin shooting. I assume none of his relatives frequent this board. And I'm not even sure how the joke would be offensive, as it certainly didn't suggest anything derogatory about him. Jokes that are fundamentally and genuinely mean-spirited (especially towards those in a position of weakness) can be offensive; jokes that are just "about" a topic that some deem sensitive? Those just tend to be funny.
> 
> Anyway, I respect your right to have a different sensibility. You're a fairly rational guy, so I'm not going to say you're nuts or a wuss. I'm just going to say I don't agree.


Doesn't really matter if you agree with or share his viewpoint. Some of us found it offensive, and a mod asked that it be ended.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Even so, there is nothing ironic about juxtaposition!!


True! But my point is that it is ironic (from the persepctive of wearer) in the sense of being "opposite" or anachronistic.

Problem is, those of an "ironic" bent seem to think that ironic always means opposite or anachronistic.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Perhaps Zuck should have worn this

The executive pinstriped business hoodie...


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

catside said:


> Hi Mike, How is China?


Hi Catside....China's going fine, will be in Beijing next week. In fact Zuck was here a few months ago, wearing his hoodie, jeans and sneakers. :icon_smile_big: Still no Facebook in the PRC though, not yet. Although FB have registered facebook.cn


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

https://www.mensflair.com/news/zuckerberg-and-the-disrespectful-hoodie.php


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> Doesn't really matter if you agree with or share his viewpoint. Some of us found it offensive, and a mod asked that it be ended.


'Someone' can always find 'something' offensive. Forgive me questioning your new found role as the Voice of Reason but you do appear to post quite a few subtle 'wind-ups' on this forum. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> 'Someone' can always find 'something' offensive. Forgive me questioning your new found role as the Voice of Reason but you do appear to post quite a few subtle 'wind-ups' on this forum. :icon_smile_wink:


I agree; that was the purpose of my earlier post. So much selective outrage and sensitivity by some, while ignoring the far larger problems of the day...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Tiger said:


> While I certainly understand your point, Jovan, I hope one day that everyone becomes sensitive to the unreported aspects of interracial crime. For instance, in New York City, 98% of shootings are committed by blacks (mostly) and Hispanics. Nationally, blacks are _*seven times*_ more likely to commit murder than members of other races. In addition, black-on-white violent crime occurs _*40 times(!)*_ more often than white-on-black violent crime. Yet, Hollywood, the recording industry, and the media don't seem to want to be sensitive to _that_...
> 
> End of sermon. How 'bout those Brooks Brothers paisley hoodies, huh?


Hollywood, the recording industry, and the media? Oh really?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Hollywood, the recording industry, and the media? Oh really?


I forgot to add academia and the political charlatans...but I guess you already knew that!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

I wouldnt trust that snake Zuckerberg any further than I could throw him.


----------



## Gopherguy (Feb 27, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> I wouldnt trust that snake Zuckerberg any further than I could throw him.


Agreed. That's why I quit faceboook four years ago.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Facebook is a pernicious cult.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

A little under the weather today, sat in easy chair channel surfing: Mob spouses, genuine housewives from various locales, adolescents preening and mating and having children, tiny children in full makeup (this is exceptionally disquieting), unattractive people pawning, picking, digging, swamping, etc....Ol' Zuck is starting to look positively elegant.

If Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington _et al _had known they might just have said to hell with it.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

phyrpowr said:


> A little under the weather today, sat in easy chair channel surfing: Mob spouses, genuine housewives from various locales, adolescents preening and mating and having children, tiny children in full makeup (this is exceptionally disquieting), unattractive people pawning, picking, digging, swamping, etc....Ol' Zuck is starting to look positively elegant.
> 
> If Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington _et al _had known they might just have said to hell with it.


We are of the same breed, phyrpowr...


----------



## Atterberg (Mar 11, 2012)

Interesting that several of us have shaken off the shackles of The Facebook. Are we trailblazers, or do we just have no friends?


----------



## Gopherguy (Feb 27, 2012)

Atterberg said:


> Interesting that several of us have shaken off the shackles of The Facebook. Are we trailblazers, or do we just have no friends?


I try to have friends, but they always decide to get together via facebook. Phones apparently aren't acceptable anymore.

Seriously though, I don't understand why everyone wants to put their information online, or give us updates on your life all day. If you want to know what I'm doing call me. If you want to say hi, shoot a text. I like to think facebook is a fad that will die out in a few years, but I'm probably wrong.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

phyrpowr said:


> A little under the weather today, sat in easy chair channel surfing: Mob spouses, genuine housewives from various locales, adolescents preening and mating and having children, tiny children in full makeup (this is exceptionally disquieting), unattractive people pawning, picking, digging, swamping, etc....Ol' Zuck is starting to look positively elegant.
> 
> If Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington _et al _had known they might just have said to hell with it.


Take comfort.

There have always been unattractice slobs with little redeeming value.

They just weren't on TV!!


----------



## dhuge677 (May 16, 2012)

Zuckerberg is garbage and is not even close to a next generation Steve Jobs. He is more of a Bill Gates, in terms of his shameless ripping off and marketing of other people's ideas. Also, he has the same tastelessness of Bill Gates. 

Not at all like a Steve Jobs.


----------



## Jonathan Strange (May 3, 2012)

phyrpowr said:


> If Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington _et al _had known they might just have said to hell with it.


They may be dismayed by what our society had become, not so sure they'd have cared about the sartorial state. Franklin work a coonskin cap in Paris to play up the American caricature. Jefferson answered the door to his White House in food-stained house coat. Adams...well, he was known as "his rotundity" by his detractors but I suppose that's no mark against his style per se. Still, he was brash and argumentative and would've found his place on daytime television had it been available to him. Washington...ah, Washington, who knew how to draw all eyes his way by the strength of his style and presence. Yes, Washington's your guy for this line of reasoning.


----------



## Dean202 (Mar 8, 2012)

His sense of style (if there is one) is deliberate. But I guess instead of worrying about what he's going to wear everyday, he'd rather work on the dynamics of Facebook - and let Facebook speak for itself.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Dean202 said:


> His sense of style (if there is one) is deliberate. But I guess instead of worrying about what he's going to wear everyday, he'd rather work on the dynamics of Facebook - and let Facebook speak for itself.


Yeah, why waste ten precious minutes worrying about dressing appropriately. I'm sure he doesn't have any down time whatsoever.:icon_smile_wink:

And yet, there are many people in crucially important positions - far more important than Facebook-related stuff - that seem to find the few extra minutes it takes to look professional, respectful, and appealing. They must have mystical abilities that were denied to the Zuckerbergs of this world...


----------



## dhuge677 (May 16, 2012)

Exactly. The President of the United States (regardless of who it has been - and I'm no fan of Obama) always has a suit on, or has that "dressed like the common folk" look, but usually a politician in a campaign season has ZERO time and yet they make time to put on decent clothes. 

And little Mark can't wear a suit? He has to cover his horrible body in a hoodie every single day? So stupid and played.


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

What do you all think of this:

https://news.yahoo.com/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-marries-sweetheart-012516359--finance.html

(Still looks like crap to me...)


----------



## dhuge677 (May 16, 2012)

sbdivemaster said:


> What do you all think of this:
> 
> https://news.yahoo.com/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-marries-sweetheart-012516359--finance.html
> 
> (Still looks like crap to me...)


Yeah, his wife is pretty ugly. Zuck is worth 20 billion, so I assume that she's happy.


----------



## Blakewho (May 16, 2008)

I will pass over the rather ungentlemanly comment regarding the bride and observe merely that Mr Zuckerberg, for all his vast wealth, seems still to be buying his suits at Walmart and couldn't even be bothered to fasten his collar on the most formal occasion of his life, rather letting his bride down in the process. Shame.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Gopherguy said:


> Agreed. That's why I quit faceboook four years ago.





Brio1 said:


> Facebook is a pernicious cult.





Atterberg said:


> Interesting that several of us have shaken off the shackles of The Facebook. Are we trailblazers, or do we just have no friends?





Gopherguy said:


> I try to have friends, but they always decide to get together via facebook. Phones apparently aren't acceptable anymore.
> 
> Seriously though, I don't understand why everyone wants to put their information online, or give us updates on your life all day. If you want to know what I'm doing call me. If you want to say hi, shoot a text. I like to think facebook is a fad that will die out in a few years, but I'm probably wrong.


I'm sorry for being such a prole. 



sbdivemaster said:


> What do you all think of this:
> 
> https://news.yahoo.com/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-marries-sweetheart-012516359--finance.html
> 
> (Still looks like crap to me...)


His collar and jacket are unbuttoned just minutes after getting married. Yikes. "Alright honey, we got this over and done with, I'm gonna hit the bar now."


----------



## Claybuster (Aug 29, 2007)

Jovan said:


> His collar and jacket are unbuttoned just minutes after getting married. Yikes. "Alright honey, we got this over and done with, I'm gonna hit the bar now."


Sad to say, the collar and jacket were probably unbuttoned during the ceremony.


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

Claybuster said:


> Sad to say, the collar and jacket were probably unbuttoned during the ceremony.


I actually wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Mark marrying his college sweetheart is pretty trad. Dr. or Mrs. Zuckerberg is quite pretty actually and probably much smarter than that Nugent few comments above. The fact that he did and continue adding value to economy, creating jobs etc is more important than what he wears. I understand the citizens of Cali will benefit a touch more from his IPO divemaster!


----------



## Claybuster (Aug 29, 2007)

catside said:


> The fact that he did and continue adding value to economy, creating jobs etc is more important than what he wears. I understand the citizens of Cali will benefit a touch more from his IPO divemaster!


This is a clothing forum. Most of the people on this forum comment about clothes. Mr. Zuckerberg has bad taste when it comes to clothes. He may be a computer genius, but he has no style. I know, know...that's my opinion. Exactly.


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

catside said:


> I understand the citizens of Cali will benefit a touch more from his IPO divemaster!


Did I say they wouldn't? But, since you mention it, perhaps you can explain to me how so...


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

I am not commenting on his taste, which does definitely not match to our collective sensibilities. It may be OK for his demographic, who knows. Definitely not trad Harvard, but he dropped out :rolleyes2:. This year's Yale-Harvard game featured kids with t-shirts stating "First rule of success at Harvard: Drop-out" . They were Harvard kids.

I am well aware that it is a clothing forum, so how can you explain the comments bordering on racism, or calling Mrs Zuckerberg ugly? Nothing to do with clothes. Clothes often are not just clothes, hence this discussion.

BTW the benefit to CA seems to the tune of 2 bil to cover some budget holes:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I fear Facebook may fall flat on its face (see the bubbles of corporate history). Zuckerberg seems to me to be just trying too hard not to be a corporate suit - embarrassing really.

I'm bemused in equal measure by the comments defending his need to abandon any sense of professionalism to focus on the 'dynamics of Facebook' (whatever those may be), and the need to attack his wife. 

Clothes are one thing. Gentlemanly behaviour is quite another (and superior) standard.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Balfour said:


> I fear Facebook may fall flat on its face (see the bubbles of corporate history). Zuckerberg seems to me to be just trying too hard not to be a corporate suit - embarrassing really.
> 
> I'm bemused in equal measure by the comments defending his need to abandon any sense of professionalism to focus on the 'dynamics of Facebook' (whatever those may be), and the need to attack his wife.
> 
> Clothes are one thing. Gentlemanly behaviour is quite another (and superior) standard.


Can't agree more. By the way:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I'm hoping many more will do what I've done since FB was floated on the Stock Exchange i.e. close their accounts. I cannot accept that having a bit of fun for free on the internet should line the pockets of shareholders. But there is another reason for my closing FB and removing all personal info from it, and it is far more sinister for Swedes. In Sweden a new law (the third in a series of such laws covering different aspects of communication) is being pushed through, which will make it compulsory to permanently record and store all internet traffic for future reference. Two other laws FRA and Ipred are already in place, which allow the monitoring of all landline, e-mail, internet and mobile & SMS traffic. 

Bye bye facebook, you're not making bucks outta me boyo!


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

dhuge677 said:


> Yeah, his wife is pretty ugly. Zuck is worth 20 billion, so I assume that she's happy.


That was uncalled for, I was under the impression officers were still schooled to act as gentlemen.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

mrp said:


> That was uncalled for, I was under the impression officers were still schooled to act as gentlemen.


Indeed. The thing that never fails to surprise me is the abundance of well dressed(supposedly) scumbags that hang about here....


----------



## Bricktop (Feb 10, 2010)

Balfour said:


> I fear Facebook may fall flat on its face (see the bubbles of corporate history). Zuckerberg seems to me to be just trying too hard not to be a corporate suit - embarrassing really.


Agreed, and so transparently contrived.

And I love your profile picture.


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

Regarding the wedding picture. Mrs Zuckerberg looks great and obviously took the trouble to look good on her big day. Too bad her husband couldn't keep his collar and tie in shape. I hope she wasn't embarrassed by his appearance. 

How did US culture get to the point that the highly visible men's style leaders in TV, Hollywood, Business and Sports are often deficient compared to the 1950's or 60's?


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

catside said:


> BTW the benefit to CA seems to the tune of 2 bil to cover some budget holes:


Did you read the actual LAO report? A highly speculative report full of "should", "could", and "might"... A report generated by the same agency that was off by almost 50% in their budget deficit analysis. The 2 bil touted does not cover budget holes; it's an expected increase in PIT revenues, spread out over 6 months - 2 years, based on a 6-month estimate of $45/share. Given that time frame and the rate at which PIT revenues have been declining in CA - due to high income earners and businesses fleeing the over-burdensome taxation and regulation imposed by the state - that amount (which will likely be much less), will almost certainly be swallowed by continuing declines in PIT revenues.

Add to that this morning's 10% drop in share value, and the LAO's predictions look even more speculative.

OK, enough. This is a thread about MZ's lack of taste and etiquette in regards to his wardrobe on a forum about men's clothing.


----------



## jessef (Mar 8, 2012)

face it guys, zuckerberg will never succumb to pressures regarding fashion and style.


----------



## jwa_jwa_jwa (Jul 13, 2010)

Given the relatively poor showing the stock has had through today (ultimately performance cannot be judged on 3 days worth of trading), I think many investors are looking for reassurance or direction. Would many folks take a guy in a hoodie seriously enough to throw/invest their money in his company? For me, I think this would be the time to put my pride aside and put on the freaking suit, enough people are talking about it already.


----------



## jwa_jwa_jwa (Jul 13, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> Indeed. The thing that never fails to surprise me is the abundance of well dressed(supposedly) scumbags that hang about here....


+1
:aportnoy:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

VictorRomeo said:


> Indeed. The thing that never fails to surprise me is the abundance of well dressed(supposedly) scumbags that hang about here....


What never fails to surprise me is how one stupid boorish comment on a 5 page thread is understood to impugn the forum.


----------



## loarbmhs (Sep 17, 2011)

Why does Zuckerberg dress like a slob? Reminds me of the punchline for an ancient joke about Rod Stewart, answering the question: Why does he date only supermodels? Answer: Because he _can_. Zuckerberg may be immensely talented, unfathomably rich and extremely bright. But he chooses to wallow in his trying-hard-to-not-look-like-I'm-trying-at-all studied eccentricity of an undergrad who has just rolled out of bed in his dorm room.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

loarbmhs said:


> Why does Zuckerberg dress like a slob? Reminds me of the punchline for an ancient joke about Rod Stewart, answering the question: Why does he date only supermodels? Answer: Because he _can_. Zuckerberg may be immensely talented, unfathomably rich and extremely bright. But he chooses to wallow in his trying-hard-to-not-look-like-I'm-trying-at-all studied eccentricity of an undergrad who has just rolled out of bed in his dorm room.


Correct. One has to appear ready at all times to shoot some hoops, mountain bike, or go on the road with the band. To wear a suit is to "be a suit"...soooo nyot kuhhhllll, mehhhn (sorry, can't really replicate that slacker accent). It's an especially enticing look on men over 17, don't you think?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*Good vibrations...*

You caballeros are being too hard on poor Mr. and Mrs. Z.

I understand Mr. Z's charming and attractive bride is well educated, a successful professional, in good health, has some money of her own, and is the life of the party. She looks like she should last a good long time.

Now, make no mistake: I think the redoubtable Z would get better results in a navy solid, but we have to appreciate that this is a big improvement for him. This is like one of us wearing white tie. And I am sure the new Mrs. Z was extremely pleased to get him to dress up even that much.

This is all very good for both their karmas, so let's all concentrate on sending good vibrations their way.

Now, about the timing -- is it community property?


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Balfour said:


> I fear Facebook may fall flat on its face (see the bubbles of corporate history). Zuckerberg seems to me to be just trying too hard not to be a corporate suit - embarrassing really.


I just wonder how long Facebook's popularity is going to last before it goes the same way as Myspace and Livejournal, when another internet fad comes along.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> I just wonder how long Facebook's popularity is going to last before it goes the same way as Myspace and Livejournal, when another internet fad comes along.


Unlike MySpace, LiveJournal and most other social networking applications, Facebook made a success of selling the likes and dislikes of members to business. This has generated an entire industry around one online tool. There are many, many thrid party and independent data mining marketing businesses making billions out of it. This is on top of the money Facebook themselves make.

In other words, if you are a member of Facebook, you are the product.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

jwa_jwa_jwa said:


> Given the relatively poor showing the stock has had through today (ultimately performance cannot be judged on 3 days worth of trading), I think many investors are looking for reassurance or direction. Would many folks take a guy in a hoodie seriously enough to throw/invest their money in his company? For me, I think this would be the time to put my pride aside and put on the freaking suit, enough people are talking about it already.


You've totally misread this entire situation with regards to suits.

First up, Zuck sold $16bn worth of shares when they were at the maximum value of over $100bn. So the share price has tanked and Wall Street has lost a [email protected] load of money, or since what he took out meant there was little else for others.

So before you all judge his so-called slobbish appearance as a part of the downfall of Facebook, the real story is how the kid in the hoodie hustled the pinstripes of Wall Street and took their pants with him.

He did nothing wrong. Nothing illegal. He did what the pinstripes do on a daily basis. For some investors to win, some have to lose.

He could probably not care less what happens from here on. He's one of the richest people on the planet and not once did he have to wear a suit to make his billions.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. Perhaps a cold and arguably hard edged assessment of reality, but accurate...very, very accurate!


----------



## jwa_jwa_jwa (Jul 13, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> You've totally misread this entire situation with regards to suits.


Perhaps the angle I wasn't shining the spotlight on was his personal take in all of this. Having said that, there is an element here of "give me what I want and to hell with the rest of the banks and investors". That does not come across as the CEO many are trying to paint him to be. While the stock sinks further and further, those that provided the money old Zuck safely tucked away, are trying to do their best job of convincing America to but FB; perhaps again self-serving so that they can cash out and leave the other suckers with the FB stock.
But in any event, this type of behavior in my opinion is completely consistent with the allegations by many that he defrauded the true inventors of FB and not to digress, but it does line up with a devil may care attitude (hoodie included) which does not reflect professionalism, honesty, ethics or leadership.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

"professionalism, honesty, ethics or leadership"

These sentiments are redundant when is comes to capitalism and corporatism - the body and soul of how the west works. I know that's blunt, but so, so true.

For Zuck as CEO, he reached the pinnacle of his position - a place most CEOs can only dream of. Utterly dominant and in control of his company with no challengers from either board or investor and a body of early big-time investors strategically places to make an IPO attractive to the markets and the masses. I mean Goldman Sachs and Bono can't be wrong, right? 

He achieved from the outside - from the west coast - what these guys have been at for years. He duped them, made a fortune and never once had to play by their rules. He made them play by his. In a hoodie! The one thing that most of you here are most hung up on! 

Instead of 'Long live the Hud" selling hula hoops, it's "Long live the Zuck" selling you and me..... 

It's brilliant!


----------



## jwa_jwa_jwa (Jul 13, 2010)

I hear what you're saying Victor but I for one don't believe capitalism and ethics are mutually exclusive propositions. On the contrary while there are many incidents of corporate greed and corruption, there are countless more examples of companies that play by the rules and continue to serve themselves, their customers and their shareholders quite well and consistently.
Perhaps the real lesson is that once a cheat, always a cheat.

Whether it is Madoff or Zuck doing the duping(surely one was illegal), the only lesson that goes out to people and the world is when push come to shove, in America self enrichment at the expense of others (anyone) is tolerable and perhaps even EXPECTED and I don't believe that is true on a grand scale. But again before going into another tangent altogether I cannot under any pretext see that Zuck doesn't suck.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

We have no reay way of knowing yet if Zuck is a cheat and if he did not break any laws, how can he be? There's more to come I'm sure. He's still CEO, and it's also worth noting that a public company like Facebook(is now) is far more succeptable to negative sentiment than a private one.

Corporates are by their very nature 'greedy'. The rules, the ethics, anti-coruption laws etc. are all constructs forced upon the corporation by society at large. Ethics and capitalism are utterely exclusive. They want it all and will do all they can - including some who break/flout the law - to achieve their goals. Some get caught. Some don't. Some try shape the law to their way of thinking and the rest spend billions on 'brand awareness' and 'corporate social responsibility'. 

Ethical capitalism will never occur unless policies and regulations provide the right incentives. But that statement is in itself a massive contradiction. To make money, you must buy what I sell. The more I make, the more you lose. If regulation enforces me to sell to you at a fixed price the incentive diminshes, production mechanism flip and we race towards a socialist market economy. And we all know how that concept causes most fine Americans sleepless nights! 
It's working out fine for China though!


----------



## Gopherguy (Feb 27, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> You've totally misread this entire situation with regards to suits.
> 
> First up, Zuck sold $16bn worth of shares when they were at the maximum value of over $100bn. So the share price has tanked and Wall Street has lost a [email protected] load of money, or since what he took out meant there was little else for others.
> 
> ...


Actually, Facebook and the banks that handled the IPO are now under investigation by law enforcement for failing to disclose projected profits and other information considered vital to the share price. They gave the information to big investors but not people like us. If the allegations are true, Zuck and company are in big trouble.

So, he may have done something wrong and illegal.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

Gopherguy said:


> Actually, Facebook and the banks that handled the IPO are now under investigation by law enforcement for failing to disclose projected profits and other information considered vital to the share price. They gave the information to big investors but not people like us. If the allegations are true, Zuck and company are in big trouble.
> 
> So, he may have done something wrong and illegal.


I can't believe that I'm getting sucked into this.
BUT ... My initial impression on this as with any stock - do your home work, no one is forcing anyone to buy, understand the product and business plan. A few days prior to the IPO, some major advertisers pulled ads from FB (this was in the news) and minor advertisers outlined there lack of success on NPR interviews. Per the legal analysts on the news reports, bank experts don't need to share their long term internal assessments with the general public they reserve this info for they're paying clients.
I can imagine the law suits if a bank released information that they did not feel a stock had the right value to the general public and the stock tanked.
I would have thought folks would have learned lessons from the past dot.com bubble burst.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> Ethics and capitalism are utterely exclusive. They want it all and will do all they can - including some who break/flout the law - to achieve their goals. Some get caught. Some don't. Some try shape the law to their way of thinking and the rest spend billions on 'brand awareness' and 'corporate social responsibility'.
> 
> Ethical capitalism will never occur unless policies and regulations provide the right incentives. But that statement is in itself a massive contradiction. To make money, you must buy what I sell. The more I make, the more you lose...It's working out fine for China though!


If by "capitalism" you mean free markets/enterprise, your understanding of the topic is wanting. Free enterprise is as natural as breathing; any "problems" you detect with it are defects of human nature - and those defects permeate everything!

If you think "ethical capitalism" is an impossibility, try comparing it to an economy rife with government intervention. You'll find greater ethical flaws, and far less efficiency...


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Members, please be mindful that politics are not allowed in the Fashion Forum.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> If by "capitalism" you mean free markets/enterprise, your understanding of the topic is wanting. Free enterprise is as natural as breathing; any "problems" you detect with it are defects of human nature - and those defects permeate everything!
> 
> If you think "ethical capitalism" is an impossibility, try comparing it to an economy rife with government intervention. You'll find greater ethical flaws, and far less efficiency...


I fail to see your problem with what I've said as you seem to agree with me. I have no issue with capitalism in principal - I'm a pretty good capitalist, in fact - and my comprehension of it as an philosophical economic construct is just fine.

Perhaps we can move this conversation elsewhere....


----------



## DaveS (Dec 11, 2011)

mrp said:


> I can't believe that I'm getting sucked into this.
> 
> *I would have thought folks would have learned lessons from the past dot.com bubble burst.*


Having spent as small an amount of time on this thread as possible, since I can't believe this has gone on for so long, I'll only say this:

Having been involved in markets since 1986, I can tell you people never learn from history. Not the market's, not other's, and not their own.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> I fail to see your problem with what I've said as you seem to agree with me. I have no issue with capitalism in principal - I'm a pretty good capitalist, in fact - and my comprehension of it as an philosophical economic construct is just fine...


Perhaps I misunderstood your point(s), although referring to free enterprise as a "philosophical economic construct" seems to support my initial understanding.

In any event, best to let the discussion die here, as we should be focusing on clothing, not nuanced economic/political opinion. Sorry to be so curt...


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Unlike MySpace, LiveJournal and most other social networking applications, Facebook made a success of selling the likes and dislikes of members to business. This has generated an entire industry around one online tool. There are many, many thrid party and independent data mining marketing businesses making billions out of it. This is on top of the money Facebook themselves make.
> 
> In other words, if you are a member of Facebook, you are the product.


They'll probably be OK for the moment, until people get bored of putting their lives online and playing Farmville, they move on and find something else to do online. I got bored of Facebook a while back, last time I logged in was about a year ago. I've got friends in the UK, they don't do as much FB as they once did.

FB is the current craze, indeed they've been very succesful at monetizing their popularity. However crazes don't last forever.

Once upon a time just about everyone and his dog was being social with CB radio....who the hell uses CB radio now?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Perhaps all those old CB users (my handle was "Pocket Rocket") have upgraded and are now HAM operators...or perhaps just cell phone users? LOL, nothing passes as surely as time!


----------



## Gopherguy (Feb 27, 2012)

Anyone think we'll ever see Zuck wear a pocket square?


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Gopherguy said:


> Anyone think we'll ever see Zuck wear a pocket square?


No, but I'll bet he wears a nice suit in court...


----------



## Gopherguy (Feb 27, 2012)

cdavant said:


> No, but I'll bet he wears a nice suit in court...


Zing!


----------

