# If You Were Banned Tomorrow...



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

What would you say as your parting message?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'd call the person who banned me an insecure, childish **** like I did when I was banned from sf a couple weeks ago.


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

It was fun while it lasted, thanks for the rewarding addiction.


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'd call the person who banned me an insecure, childish **** like I did when I was banned from sf a couple weeks ago.


Were you really banned?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Alex, cancel the order I emailed for 12 pair of Pantherella OTC socks in dusty rose. Andy, I'll return my forum square and CD for a full and cheerfull refund, or You can ban me, but another man will rise up to take my place, and another his until we drive jeans and black suits into some buy it now-please backwater armpit of EBAY. I'm the unknown hero staring down the tank at Tienamen Square, Gary Cooper in High Noon and Arnold telling you " Talk to the hand." you can't bann me! I raptured last month and my computer is merely catching up physically with a prodigious and genious productivity that would reduce the recently departed Arthur C. Clark's HAL to the spastic ability of a microwave oven.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

capitalart said:


> Were you really banned?


Yes, for not showing enough empathy for the cliff puppy.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'd call the person who banned me an insecure, childish **** like I did when I was banned from sf a couple weeks ago.


You must be an uber ass, it takes some effort to get banned from SF.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yes, for not showing enough empathy for the cliff puppy.


Wow, that is the dumbest thing I've heard in quite awhile.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

not quite the whole story, though


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, actually, it is pretty much the entire story.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, actually, it is pretty much the entire story.


For what it is worth, I completely believe you, but some will defend injustice with blinders on. Hence, my signature: "Some things are true whether you believe in them or not."


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

How do posters get banned ? This is a genuine question. I have seen some relative newcomers disappear quickly. A trawl through their last posts gave no clues.

It is certainly true that avoiding 'Interchange' forum increases your chances of survival; but I have seen fights in the main clothes forum as well.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I've been here for 3 years and I just want to say thank you and god bless! Good Luck to you all.


----------



## SpookyTurtle (Nov 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> What would you say as your parting message?


You wouldn't have a chance to post a parting message, you would already be banned. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## kwilkinson (Mar 10, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'd call the person who banned me an insecure, childish **** like I did when I was banned from sf a couple weeks ago.


Ohhhhh, you mean you'd make up Pedantic Turkey2 and PedanticTurkey3, and make an even bigger fool out of yourself?

Yes, I do seem to remember something like that happening.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

"I knew when you banned Wayfarer I would be next!"


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> "I knew when you banned Wayfarer I would be next!"


LOL

Be ready ksinc, as my time might be coming  I am probably...cruising...towards it :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL
> 
> Be ready ksinc, as my time might be coming  I am probably...cruising...towards it :icon_smile_big:


You're an anti-dentite, aren't you?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You're an anti-dentite, aren't you?


NO SOUP FOR YOU, ONE YEAR!!


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Howard said:


> I've been here for 3 years and I just want to say thank you and god bless! Good Luck to you all.


Come back Howard! You haven't really been banned - it was just a theoretical exercise! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Actually, Howard, if you can post, it's only an illusion.

You are actually in a parallel message board posting to other parallel posters.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

"Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Swiftly followed by a series of repenting emails to each and every moderator, Andy, and anyone else who may have been offended by my ban worthy statements. 

Either that, or a line from a Toby Keith song, "Hate me if you want to, love me if you can." How does that sound Way? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

kwilkinson said:


> Ohhhhh, you mean you'd make up Pedantic Turkey2 and PedanticTurkey3, and make an even bigger fool out of yourself?
> 
> Yes, I do seem to remember something like that happening.


Yes, well, the OP does ask about a parting message. When you're banned without cause or warning, that's the only way to do it.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

I'm going to FNB


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

You would never get the chance to post anything, you would be gone.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

kwilkinson said:


> Ohhhhh, you mean you'd make up Pedantic Turkey2 and PedanticTurkey3, and make an even bigger fool out of yourself?
> 
> Yes, I do seem to remember something like that happening.


lol!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Perhaps the most appropriate reaction would be, "Damn, I got my life back!" Looking back, I am amazed at how much time I/we all spend in these fora.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Thank goodness for multi-tasking!


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps the most appropriate reaction would be, "Damn, I got my life back!" Looking back, I am amazed at how much time I/we all spend in these fora.


It does tend to eat up lots of time.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

*Addiction to internet 'is an illness'*

An old story really but from today's The Observer:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/23/news.internet


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Rossini said:


> Come back Howard! You haven't really been banned - it was just a theoretical exercise! :icon_smile_big:


I'm just kidding with you guys,I love you all.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

I wouldn't say anything, since I hate those long goodbye screeds.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

The thought of going on without the cameraderie of Wayfarer is too horrible to contemplate!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> The thought of going on without the cameraderie of Wayfarer is too horrible to contemplate!


:icon_smile_big: Thanks KenR.

Let's hope that does not happen, but if it does, I shall Cruise out of here remembering some interesting people


----------



## EAP (Jan 19, 2007)

Rossini said:


> An old story really but from today's The Observer: Addiction to internet 'is an illness'
> 
> https://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/23/news.internet


_*· *Excessive use, often associated with a loss of sense of time or a neglect of basic drives; _
_*· *Withdrawal, including feelings of anger, tension and/or depression when the computer is inaccessible;_
_*· *The need for better computers, more software, or more hours of use;_
_*· *Negative repercussions, including arguments, lying, poor achievement, social isolation and fatigue._

Substitute "Brooks Brothers" and/or "JPress" for "computer" and it might be more accurate.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> :icon_smile_big: Thanks KenR.
> 
> Let's hope that does not happen, but if it does, I shall Cruise out of here remembering some interesting people


Any particular reason why "Cruise" was capitalized?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

KenR said:


> Any particular reason why "Cruise" was capitalized?


For his Scientology expertise?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

KenR said:


> The thought of going on without the cameraderie of Wayfarer is too horrible to contemplate!


Wayfarer,he's the man.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL
> 
> Be ready ksinc, as my time might be coming  I am probably...cruising...towards it :icon_smile_big:


Mr. Wayfarer,

You have given me a great smile this evening,
thank you.

As I read several e mails sent to me today, outside of AAAC,
and I reflect on the "glory days" of AAAC,
it saddens me greatly to think, it is in fact "cruising" to a slow but steady demise!
When a post on London Lounge draws over 4 times the views than the AAAC version does,
clearly the sails are lacking some wind and we are not at proper "cruising" speed!


----------



## dragon (Jan 28, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yes, for not showing enough empathy for the cliff puppy.


I was banned for 2 weeks at SF for of all things writing/responding too much

If I was banned permanently I would say visit this forum at www.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> You must be an uber ass, it takes some effort to get banned from SF.


No it doesnt. I was banned from SF some time ago basically for calling connemara a pansy for always acting like an idiot and taking Alex's money for a trip to NYC and then blowing the whole thing off. Some mods over there show incredible favortism for the "popular kids" while banishing others at will. When I logged on from another comp and read the transparent moderation thread the mod who banned me admitted that he did it without thinking and in haste basically bc he felt like it. This place and its posters are much more educated on sartorial matters and are generally more mature anyways so I dont miss it.

MrR


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Ibidem.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Oh, I think there's favoritism here, or at least an eye that if not blind has a disturbing hole in its field of sight.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

In the words of Walter Cronkite:

"Good Night And Good Luck".


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Howard said:


> In the words of Walter Cronkite:
> 
> "Good Night And Good Luck".


Howard, you're the wisest person in the Interchange.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Howard said:


> In the words of Walter Cronkite:
> 
> "Good Night And Good Luck".:icon_smile_big:


I prefer Eric Cartman:

"Screw you guys-- I'm goin' home."


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

RJman said:


> Howard, you're the wisest person in the Interchange.


Thanks RJ,I kept it short and sweet.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I prefer Eric Cartman:
> 
> "Screw you guys-- I'm goin' home."


Well, what a way to end a news broadcast! Is Mr. Cartman syndicated?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Rossini said:


> Well, what a way to end a news broadcast! Is Mr. Cartman syndicated?


Have you ever watched South Park before?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Kav said:


> Alex, cancel the order I emailed for 12 pair of Pantherella OTC socks in dusty rose. Andy, I'll return my forum square and CD for a full and cheerfull refund, or You can ban me, but another man will rise up to take my place, and another his until we drive jeans and black suits into some buy it now-please backwater armpit of EBAY. I'm the unknown hero staring down the tank at Tienamen Square, Gary Cooper in High Noon and Arnold telling you " Talk to the hand." you can't bann me! I raptured last month and my computer is merely catching up physically with a prodigious and genious productivity that would reduce the recently departed Arthur C. Clark's HAL to the spastic ability of a microwave oven.


 I already did. Your credit card was declined.



Wayfarer said:


> LOL
> 
> Be ready ksinc, as my time might be coming  I am probably...cruising...towards it :icon_smile_big:


 Someone gave you a link to that thread in the Mods Forum?



Scoundrel said:


> I'm going to FNB


 Say hello to the departed for me.



KenR said:


> The thought of going on without the cameraderie of Wayfarer is too horrible to contemplate!


 You *need* a life.



RJman said:


> Oh, I think there's favoritism here, or at least an eye that if not blind has a disturbing hole in its field of sight.


 RJ: You often post mindless, instigatory sh!t like that. To quote O'Reilly ... either provide some examples or shut up and go back to your Kool-Aid.

My last post when I get banned?

"There really is a God."


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Howard said:


> Have you ever watched South Park before?


I was hoping he was some sort of rebel anchorman.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Rossini said:


> I was hoping he was some sort of rebel anchorman.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Gosh, no connection to the news division at all then?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> RJ: You often post mindless, instigatory sh!t like that. To quote O'Reilly ... either provide some examples or shut up and go back to your Kool-Aid.


Alex: If that's how you really feel, then go ahead and ban me. There's no point in the two of us making menacing innuendos at each other. However, I feel that there is enough borderline racist rhetoric on the Interchange that the entire thing could stand stronger moderation, and I know that feeling is shared by many who choose not to say it directly, but to go say it elsewhere in order to denigrate AAAC. If you choose to keep your enemies closer than your friends, then go ahead and ban me, but you'll have banned me while keeping the conspiracy theorists, the repulsive bigots, the two-faced butt-kissers and at least one dangerous lunatic (take your pick).


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

RJman said:


> Alex: If that's how you really feel, then go ahead and ban me. There's no point in the two of us making menacing innuendos at each other. However, I feel that there is enough borderline racist rhetoric on the Interchange that the entire thing could stand stronger moderation, and I know that feeling is shared by many who choose not to say it directly, but to go say it elsewhere in order to denigrate AAAC. If you choose to keep your enemies closer than your friends, then go ahead and ban me, but you'll have banned me while keeping the conspiracy theorists, the repulsive bigots, the two-faced butt-kissers and at least one dangerous lunatic (take your pick).


This thread would be a lot more fun if you'd be more specific about who is what.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> This thread would be a lot more fun if you'd be more specific about who me what.


.....


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

iammatt said:


> :devil:


I haven't noticed any racist rhetoric from whomewhat...


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

I was unaware we had a roaming lunatic amongst these forums


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

capitalart said:


> I was unaware we had a roaming lunatic amongst these forums


I am convinced that a few are not technically roaming free, and that they post only during computer hours at the asylum, but others seem to be walking the world in fancy shoes.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

RJman said:


> Alex: If that's how you really feel, then go ahead and ban me. There's no point in the two of us making menacing innuendos at each other. However, I feel that there is enough borderline racist rhetoric on the Interchange that the entire thing could stand stronger moderation, and I know that feeling is shared by many who choose not to say it directly, but to go say it elsewhere in order to denigrate AAAC. If you choose to keep your enemies closer than your friends, then go ahead and ban me, but you'll have banned me while keeping the conspiracy theorists, the repulsive bigots, the two-faced butt-kissers and at least one dangerous lunatic (take your pick).


 It is well known that we do not moderate the Interchange unless a post is reported. This is a clothing forum and we choose to expend our countless hours of volunteer efforts moderating the four fora which are the reason for the site's existance. If the presence of the Interchange assists in keeping those fora clean, it is a good thing.

My retort to your post was directed squarely at your statement that there are "favorites". On the clothing fora there are. You have been one of those "favorites" for years. This is due to your extensive experience with clothing and your long tenure as a member. For these reasons, you - and others with similar attributes - are afforded greater latitude than newer members.

However, your statement was made on the Interchange and is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. We dislike (I'm refraining from true depth-of-feeling here) all Interchange posters equally. If nobody made an Interchange post for an entire month, not only would we not care ... we probably would not even know.

There is no reason whatsoever - except truth - for you to retract your statement about Interchange favorites. But, in good conscience, you should.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> However, your statement was made on the Interchange and is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. We dislike (I'm refraining from true depth-of-feeling here) all Interchange posters equally. If nobody made an Interchange post for an entire month, not only would we not care ... we probably would not even know.
> 
> There is no reason whatsoever - except truth - for you to retract your statement about Interchange favorites. But, in good conscience, you should.


I can't deny I've been given favorable treatment on AAAC. I don't intend my previous posts to imply that favorable treatment is given to racists and lunatics.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

RJman said:


> Alex: If that's how you really feel, then go ahead and ban me. There's no point in the two of us making menacing innuendos at each other. However, I feel that there is enough borderline racist rhetoric on the Interchange that the entire thing could stand stronger moderation, and I know that feeling is shared by many who choose not to say it directly, but to go say it elsewhere in order to denigrate AAAC. If you choose to keep your enemies closer than your friends, then go ahead and ban me, but you'll have banned me while keeping the conspiracy theorists, the repulsive bigots, the two-faced butt-kissers and at least one dangerous lunatic (take your pick).


Wow, you are a tool...


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> My retort to your post was directed squarely at your statement that there are "favorites". On the clothing fora there are. You have been one of those "favorites" for years. This is due to your extensive experience with clothing and your long tenure as a member. For these reasons, you - and others with similar attributes - are afforded greater latitude than newer members.


This makes me scratch my head, out of both curiosity and concern. Exactly what kind of 'latitude' do favored posters get?



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> If nobody made an Interchange post for an entire month, not only would we not care ... we probably would not even know.


Perhaps there is a history here I am unaware of, but if what you say is true, why facilitate the Interchange to begin with?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

JRR said:


> Wow, you are a tool...


From you, that's a compliment.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Rossini said:


> An old story really but from today's The Observer:
> 
> https://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/23/news.internet


The wife has been saying for years that I am sick...come to think of it, she was saying that well before Al Gore invented the internet! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> Perhaps there is a history here I am unaware of, but if what you say is true, why facilitate the Interchange to begin with?


For the very reason Alex already stated: to keep the non-clothing related topics out of the clothing forums. Just today I wrote on SF that I'm not generally in favor of fragmenting forums; the Interchange is a grand exception. Pre-Interchange AAAC was often a tangle of politics, clothing, and often downright hatred. Thankfully, the first and third have basically been diverted from the clothing areas. It reminds me of the _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ episode entitled "Skin of Evil."


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

RJman said:


> From you, that's a compliment.


Dude,

Go through my posts, what is your problem? Please enlighten me!

For an attorney, you don't back your statements up at all.

Here's a list of my threads, feel free to peruse.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/search.php?searchid=1536144


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Teacher said:


> For the very reason Alex already stated: to keep the non-clothing related topics out of the clothing forums. Just today I wrote on SF that I'm not generally in favor of fragmenting forums; the Interchange is a grand exception. *Pre-Interchange AAAC was often a tangle of politics, clothing, and often downright hatred. Thankfully, the first and third have basically been diverted from the clothing areas.* It reminds me of the _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ episode entitled "Skin of Evil."


but now there is hardly any real discussion in the clothing forum .


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Teacher said:


> For the very reason Alex already stated: to keep the non-clothing related topics out of the clothing forums. Just today I wrote on SF that I'm not generally in favor of fragmenting forums; the Interchange is a grand exception. Pre-Interchange AAAC was often a tangle of politics, clothing, and often downright hatred. Thankfully, the first and third have basically been diverted from the clothing areas. It reminds me of the _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ episode entitled "Skin of Evil."


Right, but it seems moderating comments and banning the right people could have fixed the problem. Sometimes vaguely racist comments still show up on the main forum. The posters who think and say such things should be ditched rather than be given a new playground.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Banning people for "vaguely racist" comments? Anybody wanna fill me in on what a vaguely racist statement might look like?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> My last post when I get banned?
> 
> "There really is a God."


Best post ever.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Since I'm a musician (and shameless in my everlasting search for puns), I would say "Strike Up the Banned."


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Pedantic Turkey, what was your SF username pre-banning?


iammatt said:


> but now there is hardly any real discussion in the clothing forum .


Well, when you want to wallow in some sort of Boschian orgiastic hell, you appear to know where to go.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

RJman said:


> Pedantic Turkey, what was your SF username pre-banning?


Pedantic Turkey.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

mafoofan said:


> Sometimes vaguely racist comments still show up on the main forum.


Examples?


----------



## A. Clay-More (Dec 5, 2007)

This looks like an argument for thought control ! 



mafoofan said:


> Sometimes vaguely racist comments still show up on the main forum. *The posters who think and say such things should be ditched* rather than be given a new playground.


 (emphasis added)


----------



## Wizard (Feb 29, 2008)

Teacher said:


> For the very reason Alex already stated: to keep the non-clothing related topics out of the clothing forums. Just today I wrote on SF that I'm not generally in favor of fragmenting forums; the Interchange is a grand exception. Pre-Interchange AAAC was often a tangle of politics, clothing, and often downright hatred. Thankfully, the first and third have basically been diverted from the clothing areas. *It reminds me of the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode entitled "Skin of Evil.*"


and back to clothing... would that episode be an example of the perils of wearing black? Or maybe the visceral reaction to a poorly tailored suit. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Teacher said:


> Pre-Interchange AAAC was often a tangle of politics, clothing, and often downright hatred.


Do you mean stuff like this:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=230510&postcount=1


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

JRR said:


> Do you mean stuff like this:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=230510&postcount=1


I see what you did there! By digging really deeply for an inane post I made a few years ago in exasperation at the rising tide of Trad on the main forum you're trying to show that I made a post of "politics...and downright hatred." Yes, that must be it. Thank you! Can you make more clear the political subtext of Deliverance? Is "squealing like a pig" in fact an oblique reference to Animal Farm and the inherent faults in certain forms of government? And I must hate... what? Trads? People who play banjos?

Keep banging the rocks together.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

RJman said:


> I see what you did there! By digging really deeply for an inane post I made a few years ago in exasperation at the rising tide of Trad on the main forum you're trying to show that I made a post of "politics...and downright hatred." Yes, that must be it. Thank you! Can you make more clear the political subtext of Deliverance? Is "squealing like a pig" in fact an oblique reference to Animal Farm and the inherent faults in certain forms of government? And I must hate... what? Trads? People who play banjos?
> 
> Keep banging the rocks together.


Oh, I see, your posts are just little sassy asides, that are so sophisticated and witty.

And yet you project all types of crap on other people's posts...

Still waiting for you dig out something I posted that you have issues with...

So what's your explanation for this one of yours:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=495332&postcount=1

You have no issues with Haggard and his ilk...Is it just teasing, how rich...


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

What exactly is your problem with me? You must have a pretty large chip on your shoulder to be going fishing quite so deep... for pretty small fry.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> The wife has been saying for years that I am sick...come to think of it, she was saying that well before Al Gore invented the internet! :icon_smile_wink:


You raise an interesting point. Since he is directly responsible for it being here, Al Gore should be made to moderate the Interchange. At least until he learns his lesson. :icon_smile:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Rossini said:


> You raise an interesting point. Since he is directly responsible for it being here, *Al Gore should be made to moderate the Interchange*. At least until he learns his lesson. :icon_smile:


He'd be shrieking in horror at what he had created within a week.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

RJman said:


> What exactly is your problem with me? You must have a pretty large chip on your shoulder to be going fishing quite so deep... for pretty small fry.


Yes, I am shaking in my boots, conversing with the legendary RJ Man, lover of cats, Parisian expat, attorney extraordinare...

Dude, face it, you are no better than the rest of us. You have biases, just like any of us.

Yet we are the bigots, lunatics, etc...and you are the enlightened, tolerant one...even when you make highly spirited remarks.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

JRR said:


> the legendary RJ Man, lover of cats, Parisian expat, attorney extraordinare...


Thank you! I also have an enchanting musk.


> Dude, face it, you are no better than the rest of us. You have biases, just like any of us.


Well, of course I do. I never said I was better than everyone else.


> Yet we are the bigots, lunatics, etc...and you are the enlightened, tolerant one...even when you make highly spirited remarks.


I did not mean everyone in general nor have you in mind in particular in my comments. At any rate, there is no conflict between being enlightened and tolerant and "spirited", although we all should strive for the two former...


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

RJman said:


> I did not mean everyone in general nor have you in mind in particular in my comments.


So why the "compliment" response...?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

JRR said:


> So why the "compliment" response...?


You called me a tool. What sort of response would you give if someone insulted you?


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

RJman said:


> You called me a tool. What sort of response would you give if someone insulted you?


Ok, sorry if that deeply hurt. No thoughts that complaints about the Interchange are a bit whiney...?

Well, anyway, gotta run for the evening...


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

Ban me and I will become more powerful than you can ever imagine.


----------



## kwilkinson (Mar 10, 2008)

Bob Loblaw said:


> Ban me and I will become more powerful than you can ever imagine.


Ahh, but will you start a blog in which you bash the forum that banned you incessantly, post after post after post ad nauseum?

Cause that's the only way to be a true badass :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Forums thrive on e-drama. One either accepts it or turns off the computer.

At least drama is a popular, necessary ingredient at the moment. Perhaps it is just a phase of the Internet subculture.

What is it about anonymity and shared interest that push people into power trips and soap opera-like conflicts? Someone once said everyone needs a way to "prove" they exist. I am convinced even the need to prove one exists is a trend.

The way forums were supposed to work, I'm sure, is no drama, just straight, impersonal discussion. In reality, forums take on a life of their own.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Is the original purpose of a forum really just an illusion in one's head, and, is what is happening right now the "absolute" proper working of a forum?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

kwilkinson said:


> Ahh, but will you start a blog in which you bash the forum that banned you incessantly, post after post after post ad nauseum?
> 
> Cause that's the only way to be a true badass :icon_headagainstwal


Now that is funny. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

My moderator's hat is *off. *RJ may at times be a niggling pain-in-the-butt, but he is not an ass ... in contrast to the following:


mafoofan said:


> This makes me scratch my head, out of both curiosity and concern. Exactly what kind of 'latitude' do favored posters get?


 Take your concern and shove it. That was not "favored posters". IIRC that was posters of long tenure with extensive clothing experience. When you have both - or even either - raise the question again. And if you need to scratch something, reach behind yourself.



iammatt said:


> but now there is hardly any real discussion in the clothing forum .


 Did you ever stop to think? Perhaps when a group of members with very little expertise began to cite "equally expert opinions of those who don't post on the fora" as gospel in comparison to the "so-called experts" who do post ... that those "so-called experts" might get tired of being demeaned? Did you ever stop to think that your know-it-all attitude, your constant, baseless challenges to those who actually make clothing and to those who have done in-depth research on the subject, myself included, might make us decide it just was not worth the interminable bashing? Did you ever stop to think that this might impact the level of discourse? Did you ever stop to think that "those of equally expert opinions who don't post" don't do so because their "opinions" wouldn't stand up? Because they simply haven't the balls to be challenged? Did you ever stop to think? I don't think you ever even began to think. I'll see your  and raise you    .

Well, now. *That* was fun. I knew the Interchange existed for a reason.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

AlanC has several hats, which one is the Mod hat?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Laxplayer said:


> AlanC has several hats, which one is the Mod hat?


The furry one with the soundproof earmuffs and eye covers.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> The furry one with the soundproof earmuffs and eye covers.


Good choice. Hear and see no evil.


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> My moderator's hat is *off. *RJ may at times be a niggling pain-in-the-butt, but he is not an ass ... in contrast to the following:
> Take your concern and shove it. That was not "favored posters". IIRC that was posters of long tenure with extensive clothing experience. When you have both - or even either - raise the question again. And if you need to scratch something, reach behind yourself.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think? Perhaps when a group of members with very little expertise began to cite "equally expert opinions of those who don't post on the fora" as gospel in comparison to the "so-called experts" who do post ... that those "so-called experts" might get tired of being demeaned? Did you ever stop to think that your know-it-all attitude, your constant, baseless challenges to those who actually make clothing and to those who have done in-depth research on the subject, myself included, might make us decide it just was not worth the interminable bashing? Did you ever stop to think that this might impact the level of discourse? Did you ever stop to think that "those of equally expert opinions who don't post" don't do so because their "opinions" wouldn't stand up? Because they simply haven't the balls to be challenged? Did you ever stop to think? I don't think you ever even began to think. I'll see your  and raise you    .
> ...


Did you ever stop to think that you might be wrong? Yeah, I didn't think so.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> My moderator's hat is *off. *RJ may at times be a niggling pain-in-the-butt, but he is not an ass ... in contrast to the following:
> 
> Take your concern and shove it. That was not "favored posters". IIRC that was posters of long tenure with extensive clothing experience. When you have both - or even either - raise the question again. And if you need to scratch something, reach behind yourself.


Temper, temper. Clearly, I am not a favored poster. Oh wait, 'favored posters' don't exist. Your word was "favorites." _Completely_ different, I see. Now, to make sure I understand you: to find out what 'latitude' you give 'favorites', I have to _become_ a favorite. It's funny how that works.

Please don't think you can get under my skin by insulting my clothing experience. First of all, I have enough clothing experience to know that buying shirts from _you_ would be a waste of a thousand dollars (don't cry about character assassination or slander after calling me an 'ass'). Second, some of us are proud enough of what we do in real life, and don't need to bloat our abilities or reputations on the internet to feel better about ourselves. My experience is what it is, and I have never made it seem otherwise. I have _never_ felt the need to fantasize about being one of the world's greatest shirtmakers.

Since certain posts have a knack for disappearing, your original comment on "favorites" is included below.



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Did you ever stop to think? Perhaps when a group of members with very little expertise began to cite "equally expert opinions of those who don't post on the fora" as gospel in comparison to the "so-called experts" who do post ... that those "so-called experts" might get tired of being demeaned? Did you ever stop to think that your know-it-all attitude, your constant, baseless challenges to those who actually make clothing and to those who have done in-depth research on the subject, myself included, might make us decide it just was not worth the interminable bashing? Did you ever stop to think that this might impact the level of discourse? Did you ever stop to think that "those of equally expert opinions who don't post" don't do so because their "opinions" wouldn't stand up? Because they simply haven't the balls to be challenged? Did you ever stop to think? I don't think you ever even began to think.


Really, Alex, I'd be careful about asking people to think. They might figure you out.

This may be news to you, but 99.99% of the world's greatest tailors and shirtmakers _don't_ post on this forum--or any other. Many don't even speak English (is that something you have a problem with?). In fact, you and Carl are the _only_ shirtmakers that frequent Ask Andy. Between the two of you, only _you_ claim to be one of the world's best and denounce your competitors as liars. Clearly, you have an interest in making members believe you are a supreme authority. Perhaps you can sell more socks that way.

So tell me, when _does_ one of the world's best shirtmakers find the time to moderate an internet forum and post so frequently on it? I mean, you also have that booming underwear and hosiery business to think of.

I don't know why you bother changing your 'hat' when your head is always up something else.

On "favorites":


Alexander Kabbaz said:


> My retort to your post was directed squarely at your statement that there are "favorites". On the clothing fora there are. You have been one of those "favorites" for years. This is due to your extensive experience with clothing and your long tenure as a member. For these reasons, you - and others with similar attributes - are afforded greater latitude than newer members.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Connemara said:


> Did you ever stop to think that you might be wrong? Yeah, I didn't think so.


I think there is being incorrect *on occasion* and then there is constantly having your rather expert opinion constantly challenged and ridiculed. I am not defending AK, he is more than capable of that himself, but most of us here have a field of expertise. It does grow tiresome when people not in the field constantly think they know more about your field than you do. I can see how that would be bothersome to anyone.

I mean, I do not tell you about the life of drunken schoolboys do I? :icon_smile_big: (I am just jealous living in the world of grups now).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Connemara said:


> Did you ever stop to think that you might be wrong? Yeah, I didn't think so.


Connemara, if my own children had activated their mouths (or keyboards) with as little forethought, as you seem to be prone to do, I would have spanked them or exiled them to their rooms. I do hope your Daddy reads this post and can take a hint. You will be better for it!


----------



## Valhson (Mar 26, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> Connemara, if my own children had activated their mouths (or keyboards) with as little forethought, as you seem to be prone to do, I would have spanked them or exiled them to their rooms. I do hope your Daddy reads this post and can take a hint. You will be better for it!


Wow, now that I look at it that way I would have gotten a whack ...


----------



## kwilkinson (Mar 10, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Connemara, if my own children had activated their mouths (or keyboards) with as little forethought, as you seem to be prone to do, I would have spanked them or exiled them to their rooms. I do hope your Daddy reads this post and can take a hint. You will be better for it!


Conne--- if your daddy won't, I'd be glad to


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was trying to figure out our newly arrived and self appointed grand inquisitor kwilkinswon. Then it hit me. The 'writer' in UNFORGIVEN who attached himself to pistoleros until Clint suggested he might be next. I've seen your type, hovering around alpha males in gangs and workplace politics-- and comparing peepees in the men's room.


----------



## kwilkinson (Mar 10, 2008)

Kav said:


> I was trying to figure out our newly arrived and self appointed grand inquisitor kwilkinswon. Then it hit me. The 'writer' in UNFORGIVEN who attached himself to pistoleros until Clint suggested he might be next. I've seen your type, hovering around alpha males in gangs and workplace politics-- and comparing peepees in the men's room.


Are you really that weirded out by a silly gay joke between friends? :crazy:

I do like your way with words though. You seem rather eloquent.


----------



## Valhson (Mar 26, 2007)

kwilkinson said:


> Are you really that weirded out by a silly gay joke between friends? :crazy:
> 
> I do like your way with words though. You seem rather eloquent.


writing 'peepees' is eloquent? ic12337:

Actually we do agree on one point... His posts are always and have always been good to read... now enough smoke blowing!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I had 17 posts too at one time. I think it's unfair to use post count as a reason to discredit what someone says. As for wmw being banned, it doesn't really matter what we think, it's not our board. wmw can start his own forum if he wants to and ban anyone he wants to. I don't have a problem with wmw posting here, though I do think his blog is a little strange. I just don't give a damn what anonymous posters think of me, but he obviously does. Whatever makes him happy. Just like ripples in the water this will soon fade and be forgotten. wmw will go on with life just like the rest of us. I know it's hard for some to believe, but *the internet really isn't that important.*


----------



## XdryMartini (Jan 5, 2008)

*Definitions*

This may sound odd, but I thought "an opinion", by definition, didn't have right or wrong associated with the opinion holder's viewpoint.

To the person holding a certain view, that view is what they believe. I think that, like religion, politics and other topics, the friction builds when someone tries to assert that "their" view is the only correct one, then someone's feelings are going to get hurt, tempers flair and we loose our objectiveness.

If you remember the Dire Straits lyrics: "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong," then you realize that this paradigm doesn't apply to someone's personal views. When you try to force your idea as "the only possible correct one", then you run the risk of your own view being ridiculed by those with a diametrically opposed view.

If you disagree with someone, tell your side of the story, but still respect that everyone else is entitled their own views. If you do this, then you are on the path to being respected as well. I always encourage people to discuss things, so alternate ways of understand topics can be aired. Just be respectful.

Don't schools or parents teach these things anymore??? :teacha:


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

If I were banned tomorrow, what would I do? I think I would just keep quiet, after all, I would be banned, and let Kav do all the talking. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Actually, I had THREE men walk up to me and identify themselves as Jesus. I'm standing there, the wrinkled aluminum Pacific Ocean reflecting another glorious day in Kaleeforneea, Sia Barbi riding off after lecturing me about eating raw fruits and vegetables and my pet, 5 legged coyote waiting patiently in the arena for another game of chase. Jesus # 1, Jesus # 2 and Jesus # 3 all wanted yobs at the ranch and assured me they were mui hombre vaqueros and had worked for 'Uncle Tony' Antonio Aquilar at his Rancheria. I pointed to his signed photojust as the heat, the buzzing of cicadas and to much vegetation ( cactus and limes) slightly modified from Sia's diet I had consumed for lunch made me suddenly feint. I came to, with Sia looking down with a look of deep concern. I looked up with a look of appreciation. There is a God, a trinity in fact. Just not all of them are named Jesus.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Welcome back, whomewhat. So you were able to provide proof that you did not post assertions that iammatt was a hideously disfigured homosexual child of incestuous rape?


----------



## kwilkinson (Mar 10, 2008)

RJman said:


> Welcome back, whomewhat. So you were able to provide proof that you did not post assertions that iammatt was a hideously disfigured homosexual child of incestuous rape?


Must have been after he deleted it from his blog.

Well-played WMW.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

RJman said:


> Welcome back, whomewhat. So you were able to provide proof that you did not post assertions that iammatt was a hideously disfigured homosexual child of incestuous rape?


 No. He removed the satire from his blog, at my behest, to please those who live in glass houses. Thank you, WMW.

It would be nice to see a retraction by the other side.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Kav said:


> Actually, I had THREE men walk up to me and identify themselves as Jesus. I'm standing there, the wrinkled aluminum Pacific Ocean reflecting another glorious day in Kaleeforneea, Sia Barbi riding off after lecturing me about eating raw fruits and vegetables and my pet, 5 legged coyote waiting patiently in the arena for another game of chase. Jesus # 1, Jesus # 2 and Jesus # 3 all wanted yobs at the ranch and assured me they were mui hombre vaqueros and had worked for 'Uncle Tony' Antonio Aquilar at his Rancheria. I pointed to his signed photojust as the heat, the buzzing of cicadas and to much vegetation ( cactus and limes) slightly modified from Sia's diet I had consumed for lunch made me suddenly feint. I came to, with Sia looking down with a look of deep concern. I looked up with a look of appreciation. There is a God, a trinity in fact. Just not all of them are named Jesus.


 And when you feinted ... did Jesus 1,2, or 3 step quickly backward? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> No. He removed the satire from his blog, at my behest, to please those who live in glass houses. Thank you, WMW.
> 
> It would be nice to see a retraction by the other side.


A retraction from the other side? For what? For saying that his button boots were ugly as sin? You must be kidding me. I suppose, though, that this kind of insanity should come as no surprise since your original reaction was that I should "look up karma in the dictionary" because I had $h!t on you. You clumsily tried to back away from that, but with little success.

The fact that this poster, who parodied me by calling my mother a whore and me an AIDS infected homosexual prostitute, is now a member in good standing of a forum you laughably call one for "gentlemen" is proof enough of how far downhill this cesspool has gone. It was once a place where discussion was allowed and encouraged, but now it is simply the domain to the deranged, insane and easily influenced.

Since my membership is likely not to survive much past this post, I can only say that it is really a shame that the entire forum has been ruined by ego and psychosis. Others saw it long before I did, but with this episode it has been made so plain that even a two year old or a puppy could see it.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

Connemara said:


> Did you ever stop to think that you might be wrong? Yeah, I didn't think so.


OOOOO......keep it up and you'll be paying for your own trip to CSE next year!

MrR


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

iammatt said:


> A retraction from the other side? For what? For saying that his button boots were ugly as sin? You must be kidding me. I suppose, though, that this kind of insanity should come as no surprise since your original reaction was that I should "look up karma in the dictionary" because I had $h!t on you. You clumsily tried to back away from that, but with little success.
> 
> The fact that this poster, who parodied me by calling my mother a whore and me an AIDS infected homosexual prostitute, is now a member in good standing of a forum you laughably call one for "gentlemen" is proof enough of how far downhill this cesspool has gone. It was once a place where discussion was allowed and encouraged, but now it is simply the domain to the deranged, insane and easily influenced.
> 
> *Since my membership is likely not to survive much past this post, I can only say that it is really a shame that the entire forum has been ruined by ego and psychosis. Others saw it long before I did, but with this episode it has been made so plain that even a two year old or a puppy could see it.*


Great post in general and the bolded was spot on. Hopefully, that take it as an opportunity to mend their ways instead of banning one of the forums best members.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

What I said in privately answering your PM, Matt, was that you had some pair of balls asking me for help after the way you have repeatedly insulted me and my knowledge of my trade these past months. Your twisting that into my having said WhoMeWhat's satire was a result of your karma is simply sick and you know it.

As for a retraction from you, I haven't a clue what's gone on between you two. I do not read the Interchange unless requested by a member to do so. The only evidence I see is the various messages we receive from members in which you have also been cited as a protagonist. If that is incorrect, so be it.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I usually stay out of this stuff, but as far as I can see, Matt did not post any of the awful stuff related to wishing evil to WMW's son. Why does he need to retract anything?


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

*Jesus Christ...*

Are we not grown men? Talking about each others mothers and whatnot. Who cares what WMW said about Iammatt, anyone with 2 brain cells knows it was a fabrication by someone who needs a dayjob.

MrR


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

capitalart said:


> I was unaware we had a roaming lunatic amongst these forums


I don't see any?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Though I really have no idea of what the "issue" has devolved into, here, I am compelled to say that this thread has been highly entertaining in a "train wreck/cat-fight sort of way.

I want to hang you and thank you all at the same time.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

If I was banned tomorrow,I'd say I'm glad that I surpassed many years here and had a lot of virtual friends.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> Are we not grown men? Talking about each others mothers and whatnot. Who cares what WMW said about Iammatt, anyone with 2 brain cells knows it was a fabrication by someone who needs a dayjob.
> 
> MrR


I agree. To paraphrase Sonny from _A Bronx Tale_, "You're worried about what <insert username> says? Nobody cares. Nobody cares. Worry about yourself, your family and your friends."


----------



## kronik (Dec 27, 2005)

I should start frequenting this board again.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Jesus Christ...Are we not grown men? Talking about each others mothers and whatnot. Who cares what WMW said about Iammatt, anyone with 2 brain cells knows it was a fabrication by someone who needs a dayjob.


I agree. Neither Whomewhat, iammatt nor kwilkinson are allowed to sit at the in-table in the school cafeteria until further notice.

And I'm seriously considering dis-inviting them from my slumber party.

Anyone who keeps it up may even be kicked off the pom-pom squad _permanently_.


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

I just want to say thanks to all involved in this thread for making this forum interesting again, even if briefly.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Phinn said:


> I agree. Neither Whomewhat, iammatt nor kwilkinson are allowed to sit at the in-table in the school cafeteria until further notice.
> 
> And I'm seriously considering dis-inviting them from my slumber party.
> 
> Anyone who keeps it up may even be kicked off the pom-pom squad _permanently_.


 I really feel left out.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

XdryMartini said:


> This may sound odd, but I thought "an opinion", by definition, didn't have right or wrong associated with the opinion holder's viewpoint.
> 
> To the person holding a certain view, that view is what they believe. I think that, like religion, politics and other topics, the friction builds when someone tries to assert that "their" view is the only correct one, then someone's feelings are going to get hurt, tempers flair and we loose our objectiveness.
> 
> ...


Wise words!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I agree. Neither Whomewhat, iammatt nor kwilkinson are allowed to sit at the in-table in the school cafeteria until further notice.
> 
> And I'm seriously considering dis-inviting them from my slumber party.
> 
> Anyone who keeps it up may even be kicked off the pom-pom squad _permanently_.


Best post of the thread. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

LotharoftheHillPeople said:


> I just want to say thanks to all involved in this thread for making this forum interesting again, even if briefly.


How has it been interesting?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Phinn said:


> I agree. Neither Whomewhat, iammatt nor kwilkinson are allowed to sit at the in-table in the school cafeteria until further notice.
> 
> And I'm seriously considering dis-inviting them from my slumber party.
> 
> Anyone who keeps it up may even be kicked off the pom-pom squad _permanently_.


That's it...if they can't come to your slumber party...then I'm not gonna bring my Stretch Armstrong...then you'll be sorry...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Phinn said:


> ...And I'm seriously considering dis-inviting them from my slumber party.
> 
> Anyone who keeps it up may even be kicked off the pom-pom squad _permanently_.


LOL, you're having a slumber party and didn't invite me...no wonder they wouldn't let you live in Rock Ridge! My pom-poms and tutu are being returned via seperate post. ic12337:


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 12, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I really feel left out.


Alex - I can ban you from SF if you think it would make you One Of The Cool Kids 

When I was banned from London Lounge, I just kinda thought it was funny. Am I too well adjusted for my own good?


----------



## davidhm (Jan 8, 2006)

*How can the forum be improved?*

I think that's the only really important question. There are posters who sometimes, and sometimes frequently, drag it down. That's common enough on the internet. But that it's common hardly means its unavoidable or should be accepted.

I've seen many tremendously nasty attacks on well-informed posters. Yobs (please tell me that's not an inadvertently racist term) who shout, oh yeah... what do you know? with very, very little basis to back it up. People went to town, really quite harshly, on the podiatrist (or, as some of his ill-mannered opposition put it, alleged podiatrist) who suggested that in his professional opinion it wasn't worth the risk of buying used shoes. I disagree with him, but I was glad to hear his informed opinion. There weren't many among his opposition (i.e., those who shared my view) that I thought were half as well informed.

I suspect he won't be posting as much.

People attacked, fairly viciously, the guy who posted what appeared to me, admittedly uneducated in American Con Law, save for cramming for the NY bar, to be a very careful and detailed analysis of the constitutional eligibility of your various presidential candidates.

I know he won't be posting as much.

I know that some members thought it appropriate, in a thread about what was happening to the good manners of door holding, to crack about taking liberties, if only with ones eyes, with the ladies as they went thru and to suggest that ladies who disliked the gendered stigma that is attached to some social graces were female dogs.

I don't know how good a shirt-maker Mr. Kabbaz is. I have not the first clue whether he's the best in the world, the best in NY, the 4th best in NY, or what. (Although, I don't believe he could be much below best in NY and get the business he does, no matter if he's the best salesman in the world or not.) I don't know what his shirts are "worth", though I do think that the idea of an innate worth of an item is a bit of a throw-back to early Christian ideas about god given just prices that really doesn't fit well in a market society. People do business. They trade freely with others. If you have $800 for a shirt, and like the shirt, good on you, I suppose. If you think that society should be re-jigged so that no one has $800 for a shirt, well, raise your revolution, but you might start the rally at a beer-hall and not on a forum that the $800 shirt guy sponsors. I don't know whether I'll ever be able to afford, or really, when all is said and done, want such a shirt. I suspect that I will almost always be happier with aspiring to two $300 shirts and a really nice meal out. 
What I do know, is that when I emailed him that I'd found discounted, clearance Zimmerli camisoles from circa 2002 on STP, he graciously helped me pick the best matching items he had so I could assemble a gift for my wife, without a whiff of "Indeed, you've found something in the rubbish bin, and you'd like to know if we have anything that matches." And he generously added an extra pair to apologize for an insignificant shipping delay. And, I know that the soap (kryptonite, I think it was, but maybe with a "B") that he recommended did quite the job when I pre-scrubbed my shirt collars and cuffs before taking them to a, heaven forfend, $1.50 / shirt dry-cleaner, who, by the way, doesn't like it when I bring my shirts in damp.

And, I know, in part because he just said so, but really, because I'm not a buffoon, that he won't be writing as many careful articles on laundering, sewing buttons, etc. as he might, when he is subjected to some of the viciousness on display here today.

I cast my lot with those that make a contribution. I'd like to think about how the guff can be weeded out, discouraged, what have you. Perhaps the interchange is an important part of that process. I hadn't realized that was part of the intent.

I have only one other idea, one that I've posted in another thread. I think it would be interesting to give OPs moderator authority over their posts. Someone could say, "I'd like to talk about how great spectators are! If you want to talk about what dorks would wear spectators, start your own thread." Not sure its a great idea, but I'd be interested in hearing others.

Actually, I just had another idea. I'm over quota for the day. Shan't think at all tomorrow. Part of the nastiness on the net is because people are anonymous. They say terrible things because they can; who will ever know? A witty pseudonym helps create an online persona, but it is a two-edged sword.

David MacFarlane


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Maybe it is an age thing. Eliminate all the young men under 30. Then that would include me. Don't the inane postings of younger men encourage the unacceptable behavior of older men?


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

davidhm said:


> I don't know how good a shirt-maker Mr. Kabbaz is. I have not the first clue whether he's the best in the world, the best in NY, the 4th best in NY, or what. (Although, I don't believe he could be much below best in NY and get the business he does, no matter if he's the best salesman in the world or not.) I don't know what his shirts are "worth", though I do think that the idea of an innate worth of an item is a bit of a throw-back to early Christian ideas about god given just prices that really doesn't fit well in a market society. People do business. They trade freely with others. If you have $800 for a shirt, and like the shirt, good on you, I suppose. If you think that society should be re-jigged so that no one has $800 for a shirt, well, raise your revolution, but you might start the rally at a beer-hall and not on a forum that the $800 shirt guy sponsors. I don't know whether I'll ever be able to afford, or really, when all is said and done, want such a shirt. I suspect that I will almost always be happier with aspiring to two $300 shirts and a really nice meal out.
> What I do know, is that when I emailed him that I'd found discounted, clearance Zimmerli camisoles from circa 2002 on STP, he graciously helped me pick the best matching items he had so I could assemble a gift for my wife, without a whiff of "Indeed, you've found something in the rubbish bin, and you'd like to know if we have anything that matches." And he generously added an extra pair to apologize for an insignificant shipping delay. And, I know that the soap (kryptonite, I think it was, but maybe with a "B") that he recommended did quite the job when I pre-scrubbed my shirt collars and cuffs before taking them to a, heaven forfend, $1.50 / shirt dry-cleaner, who, by the way, doesn't like it when I bring my shirts in damp.
> 
> And, I know, in part because he just said so, but really, because I'm not a buffoon, that he won't be writing as many careful articles on laundering, sewing buttons, etc. as he might, when he is subjected to some of the viciousness on display here today.
> ...


David, you seem like a reasonable guy and you raise some good points about being open-minded to minority opinions. However, I can't help but feel that your analysis of Alex's participation in the forum leaves out important contextual information.

I will be the first person to say that Alex has significantly contributed to the forum. I have benefited from his opinions and knowledge myself. However, I think a careful reading of this thread as well as the relevant background history reveals that Alex has gone far beyond asserting opinions and knowledge; he has proclaimed that only he and other experts on this forum are worth listening to, and that all dissenters are liars (or simply people that are lying, whichever you prefer). Taking such an absolute and offensive position leaves no room for minority opinions at all--the very thing you say should be embraced more readily. I don't know how you typically handle discourse, but I think that if someone wants supreme authority over a matter, it is _his_ burden to present overwhelming evidence that only his voice is credible. Dissenters should not have to prove they have opinions worth entertaining.

I think I've been a reasonably good contributor to the forum. I documented my own bespoke experiences with noteworthy artisans and provided extensive photographs for everone to see. Frankly, I'm not sure how much more you can expect from a forum member. When you say dissent from Alex's opinions is ungrounded, I wonder why forum members' firsthand experiences like mine don't count. After all, you don't need AAAC to tell you that Charvet or Anna Matuozzo are two of the world's best shirtmakers. If they do something differently than Alex, that should be grounds enough for reasonable dissent. Alex's accusations of lying and laziness were the only ungrounded opinions--and malicious ones, at that.

About my viscious attack on Alex? I stand by every last word. A moderator calling a forum member an ass for asking a question should be frowned upon regardless of what 'hat' he's wearing. Since he can put on his moderator's hat and take it off at will, what difference does it make? When Iammatt notified Alex of whomewhat's disconcertingly hateful blog post, and Alex interpreted the notification as a request for help, did Alex respond as a neutral and objective moderator should have? No. Instead, he questions Iammatt's nerve for messaging him because they had a previous disagreement. That's just downright catty--and totally nuts when you consider the fact that Iammatt had never attacked Alex in the first place.

I'm not sure _why_ you and others assume Alex sells so many shirts. We only know how he prices them. Desmond Merrion recently took heat for offering a £30,000 bespoke suit. Nobody assumed that the high price meant that lots of people were buying it. Heck, I'll personally make you a bespoke shirt for _twice_ what Alex charges. Does that tell you anything about my success or capabilities as a shirtmaker? The reason why I find Alex so dubious is because he resorts to attacks on others' reputations and capitalizes on his reputation here in order to defeat dissenting views. A good shirtmaker's reasoning should speak for itself--no need for boasting or bullying.

Try a Google search on Alex as a shirtmaker. He's drawn attention from Robb Report (widely lambasted here for having no taste or judgment in luxury goods), and Cigar Aficionado (in 1997, when his shirts were in the same price range as Ascot Chang and Paris). But where's the global acclaim? Where are the authoritative sources lauding him as one of the world's great shirtmakers? _Where are the photos showing the fit of his amazing shirts_?

We all have brains. I'm not saying Alex doesn't have anything worth contributing--he has a lot, I think. But when you find yourself taking everything he says wholesale, what's the point of having a forum anymore? If Alex cannot participate in this forum without respectfully and civilly handling dissent, and he remains a moderator with the power to take out vendettas and hold grudges, the forum would be better off without him--regardless of how much he has contributed.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

Can we scrap the CSE next year and have an AAAC dodgeball championship?? I think that would allow everyone to get all of this pent up frustration out in a positive way. I say we make Andy the ref. 

Alex, can you get started on the Jerseys?

MrR


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> Can we scrap the CSE next year and have an AAAC dodgeball championship?? I think that would allow everyone to get all of this pent up frustration out in a positive way. I say we make Andy the ref.
> 
> Alex, can you get started on the Jerseys?
> 
> MrR


I was thinking more about a rond robin series of boxing matches culminating in an AAAC championship match where a winner won't be declared until their opponent is knocked out...


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> Can we scrap the CSE next year and have an AAAC dodgeball championship?? I think that would allow everyone to get all of this pent up frustration out in a positive way. I say we make Andy the ref.
> 
> Alex, can you get started on the Jerseys?
> 
> MrR


If you're going to become true dodgeballers, then you've got to learn the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Alex - I can ban you from SF if you think it would make you One Of The Cool Kids
> 
> When I was banned from London Lounge, I just kinda thought it was funny. Am I too well adjusted for my own good?


 I only wish anything at all that anyone could do would make me one of the Kids ... cool, nerdy, or whatever. :icon_smile:

Mafoofan: I shall give this one more go:

1] AAAC moderator policies: Excerpt from AAAC Rule #6:


> 6. ... This rule pertains solely to moderation and is not meant to preclude members and forum moderators from lively or even heated discussions on clothing or community forums subjects providing all forum rules are followed.


We moderators have expanded upon this rule amongst ourselves, and I have often written of that expansion, to wit: If a moderator feels that he wishes to participate in a heated thread, he may do so at will simply by recusing himself (removing his moderator's hat) for the remainder of the thread. By so doing, he opens himself up to any and all attacks and criticism of other members and moderators. On those five or six occasions during this past year when I have felt strongly about a subject, I have done exactly that and always contacted another moderator, usually Cusey, to let him know.

2] Opinions vs. facts:

You have a number of times lashed out at me for what you have labeled improper conduct. In a thread a short while back I stated that any shirtmaker who said that failing to match fabric patterns in certain areas were lying if they claimed it was for reasons of better/proper fit.. I further said that the sole possible reasons for not matching patterns were economic enrichment, styling preferences, inability, or laziness. I futher said that this fact does not apply to Neapolitan shirts.

I have since learned, thanks to your telling me and everyone else so, that the shirtmaker you were quoting was Anna Matuozzo.

That is the background to the following:

In this world there are opinions and there are facts. I can opine that the Iraq war is wrong. I can opine that Reverend Wright is an anti-American bigot. I can opine that AskAndy's is a nice forum. I can opine that your blue shirt is pretty.

I cannot opine that a river is dry when water is flowing down it for in *fact* it is wet. I cannot opine that Barack Obama is a woman for in *fact* he is a man. And I cannot opine that your blue shirt is a hat for it is in *fact* a shirt.

Your statement disturbed me to such a great extent that I actually scheduled a seminar for the Collection of Sartorial Excellence on the subject of pattern making and the derivative of matching the fabric patterns in various areas while cutting the shirt. Some 25 people attended that seminar and learned firsthand exactly how a shirt's fabric pattern is matched. It is matched in the cutting process. It is matched by knowing where on the yoke/center front/sleeve placket/pocket the pieces are attached and by then locating the affected pattern pieces in the proper place on the stripes when cutting them out.

The *fact* is simple: a fabric pattern *can* be matched when making a shirt.

A] If, on the other hand, one wishes to cut multiple plies of fabric at once, the fabric patterns on all plies below the top one *cannot be seen* and thus *cannot* be matched. However, it is an enormous economic benefit to cut multiple plies because cutting one vs. cutting six at a time requires only a few minutes longer.

B] When cutting a solid color cloth, all of the patten pieces can touch each other. This saves a great deal of cloth. When matching the fabric pattern, however, the *fact* is that the pieces must be moved to different areas to find the points at which the patterns will match. This necessitates additional, usually expensive, cloth. It is an economic savings to treat a patterned fabric as a solid color.

C] Inability: If someone does not know how to match the patterns, obviously it is a *fact* that, except by chance, they will not.

D] Laziness: Figuring all that out requires time and effort.

The "fit" of a shirt is determined by the pattern from which it is made and the quality of the sewing of the cut parts. That is *fact* and not opinion. Once that pattern is made, as I have written here and publically demonstrated at the CSE for all interested to see, it is the placement of the pattern on the fabric which will determine whether the fabric pattern matches at the shoulders, front center, pocket(s), and sleeve placket. That is *fact*, not opinion.

Your ongoing chastisement of me is wrong. How a shirt fits can be called opinion. The beauty - or lack thereof - of a shirt is opinion. The appropriateness of style can be an opinion. The benefits and detriments of various methods of construction can be considered opinion.

Whether a shirt has pearl buttons is fact, not opinion. Whether a fabric pattern can or cannot be matched is a fact, not opinion. It is just that simple. You can accept this or not. In either case, I am finished trying to explain it.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Thank you, David.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> When you say dissent from Alex's opinions is ungrounded, I wonder why forum members' firsthand experiences like mine don't count. ... About my viscious attack on Alex? I stand by every last word.


That tears it. Hand in your pom-poms _and_ your megaphone.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Scoundrel said:


> Maybe it is an age thing. Eliminate all the young men under 30. Then that would include me. Don't the inane postings of younger men encourage the unacceptable behavior of older men?


Why would the age matter?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Just to make one last point on this, in no way do I give two s#its about whomewhat's little tirade/satire. Frankly, I find it sad that he spends his day doing that, but that is his business and not mine. The only reason I bothered respond in this thread at all was to make a point about the poor quality of the moderation and how it has allowed, even enabled, the interchange, and much of the rest of the forum, to sink to a level that one never would have imagined only a year ago. My original PM to Alex was also along these lines, not asking for help, nor asking him to ban whomewhat, but simply to point out that the existence of garbage like this was one of the reasons that half of the interchange topics were about nothing other than the sad state of the interchange.



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> No. He removed the satire from his blog, at my behest, to please those who live in glass houses. Thank you, WMW.
> 
> It would be nice to see a retraction by the other side.


The above is proof enough of what I am talking about. The inability to have any moderation standards, even when a line was drawn in the sand earlier shows how far this place has come. You attempted to set a standard, an impossible one in which you ask for a company like EBay to sort through their email bank in order to prove the word of a relatively sane person against that of a known lunatic, and to apply it again. Instead of having the intellectual honesty to follow through, you have instead decided to both lower your standard to appease said lunatic, and to attempt to justify this by calling the screed of a crazy person, a screed completely divorced from reality, a satire. In doing so, you have acted in the same way you accuse other message board moderators of acting and as such have made your site the same as you accuse theirs of being.

Finally, though it need not even be said, I never mentioned word one about whomewhat's son, or his time in Iraq. His serving in the military is extremely respectable and should never be diminished.


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

iammatt said:


> Just to make one last point on this, in no way do I give two s#its about whomewhat's little tirade/satire. Frankly, I find it sad that he spends his day doing that, but that is his business and not mine...


Come on, Matt, we all know you have a blog on which you post your hate-filled musings on those cross-fora members who've horribly mistreated you.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> Right, but it seems moderating comments and banning the right people could have fixed the problem. Sometimes vaguely racist comments still show up on the main forum. The posters who think and say such things should be ditched rather than be given a new playground.


Are you reporting these posts? I've only been a mod for six-eight weeks now, and I've intervened in a number of racist/sexist/anti-semitic comments. I don't read every thread, and I'm not going to (I'm not paid to do this). This is a community, and while there are only eight volunteer moderators, the community is also responsible for itself, to an extent. Therefore, taking a moment to report a post can get quick results.

As for banning people who make "vaguely racist comments:" well, what are those? I've seen simple, qualified statements about certain ethnicities or other groups labeled "racist" when I thought they were mere observations (correct or not). Philosophizing is easy, but when it comes to actually making the decision, it becomes unclear sometimes. (If anyone says otherwise, they're deluded.)

As for the existence of the Interchange itself, it's not as simple as telling people to leave the non-clothing items off of the clothing forum. I was here in those days, and it just didn't work well. The Interchange was created as spillover. Now, it was _not_ created -- as you seem to think -- to allow people to vent in objectionable fashions. But Alex has already stated that we do not actively moderate the Interchange, so if participants find something blatantly objectionable, it should be reported. This happens more often than I think most users realize, and when we feel that the material really is inappropriate, we take action. Posts have been edited, posters have been warned or suspended, and there have been a few bannings. Again, this is just in my time as a moderator, only a handful of weeks.

But we can't do this without the active participation of the populace of this board. I'm not getting paid to do this, and I'm simply not going to take the time to go through all the threads. None of us does. However, when I get on the internet, the first thing I do almost every time is check my email. When I see a reported post, I go to that before doing anything else. But had those thoughtful participants not reported the posts in the first place, the mods -- who generally don't participate in the Interchange -- probably wouldn't have noticed the comments in the first place.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> When I was banned from London Lounge, I just kinda thought it was funny. Am I too well adjusted for my own good?


Holy cow...what the Hell were you banned from LL for?? I don't think I've ever seen anthing from you that I thought was ban-worthy.


----------



## Eustace Tilley (Sep 23, 2007)

This thread is distasteful to say the least. One wonders what the "Andy" in Ask Andy About Clothes thinks of the Interchange and the moderators he has delegated authority too.

The only real value of this forum is the archives.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Does that include me, Eustace?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Eustace Tilley said:


> This thread is distasteful to say the least. One wonders what the "Andy" in Ask Andy About Clothes thinks of the Interchange and the moderators he has delegated authority too.
> 
> The only real value of this forum is the archives.


Well- ET has a point. Libourel's gone and Cruiser's still here- now there's a style icon for 'ya.

Look- if there are no standards promoted for dressing well, then what are we here for?  I also notice I'm not spendin time here as much as I used to either.

Meh.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

I don't know. Forums, like all other communities, evolve. Some like it, some don't. If a person thinks AAAC truly isn't worth it, then why keep reading the current threads? That's all I'm asking. Frankly, I welcome the demise of the stodgy ultraconservativism that seemed to have a stranglehold on AAAC for some time. It seems funny that some (not all) who decry AAAC but remain active on SF are extremely conservative, yet SF is far less conservative than AAAC has ever been.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Teacher said:


> I don't know. Forums, like all other communities, evolve. Some like it, some don't. If a person thinks AAAC truly isn't worth it, then why keep reading the current threads? That's all I'm asking. Frankly, I welcome the demise of the stodgy ultraconservativism that seemed to have a stranglehold on AAAC for some time. *It seems funny that some (not all) who decry AAAC but remain active on SF are extremely conservative, yet SF is far less conservative than AAAC has ever been*.


But they're all _trying _to dress well. They're not doing the "I'm okay, you're okay" premise that there are no standards or improvements to strive for.

That's the difference.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Teacher said:


> I don't know. Forums, like all other communities, evolve. Some like it, some don't. If a person thinks AAAC truly isn't worth it, then why keep reading the current threads? That's all I'm asking.


That's been my approach. I haven't found as much of interest here lately, and so I haven't posted as much. Unfortunately, if everyone does that, it creates a Catch-22. Folks can discuss the basics and the merits of Jos. A. Bank only so much, and the danger is that AA turns into an endless rehash of the same old topics as people come and go. There has to be something beyond the basics to attract and retain the type of posters who made me interested in AA in the first place. Unfortunately, that type of discussion has, for whatever reason, become increasingly less common. I'd hoped it was just a lull in the conversation, but I've grown concerned that the problem is more systemic.

I do fear that the spirit of egalitarianism has turned into the tyranny of the common man. I fully believe that folks should be able to argue the merits of jeans and the open collar, but at the same time, I think others should be able to argue the contrary just as forcefully. The notion that certain words are censored strikes me as silly and off-putting, and makes me feel as though we're being treated like children -- especially odd on a forum that prides itself as a haven for gentlemen. The goal seems to be to eliminate any possibility of hurt feelings, even for those wounded by differing opinions, but that strips the forum of the spark that makes discussion interesting. Heaven knows I wear many things that conservative posters likely think are flat-out ridiculous, but I worry about such opinions only so much -- i.e., not at all. They have their opinions, I have mine. I enjoy the forums specifically because of the diversity of thought, not despite it.

One trend I find particularly alarming is the recurrent suggestion that those with high post counts should not be questioned, and that newcomers should know their place, as it were. I have a lot of posts, but if I'm off base, I want someone to tell me, even if that person has never posted before. Just because someone has clicked "submit" frequently doesn't necessarily mean he knows what he's talking about. A post count is just a post count, and all of us can be wrong. Beyond that, the point of the forum is discussion, not deferral.

I have done my best to stay out of the recent unpleasantness, and don't wish to wade into it now. But I do care about the future of the forum, and so I share these thoughts in the spirit of making AA the best it can be.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 12, 2005)

Teacher said:


> Holy cow...what the Hell were you banned from LL for?? I don't think I've ever seen anthing from you that I thought was ban-worthy.


dates back to that time that a few of those boys took it upon themselves to go proving that the workshop of Darren Beaman was not in fact 'Darren Beaman's Workshop'. Remember that blowout? I was the first to cry "loser loser" at the people concerned, both here and at SF.

I think I had amassed a grand total of four posts over there, so I was hardly an active member anyhow.

Next time I went to log in (which was probably a month or so later) I couldn't get in. Filed it under 'weird glitchy thing' and registered again. It let me have the same handle and everything IIRC.

Was an active member for like eight hours on my new account, session timed out, logged in again...dead again.

Manton told me later than I had been deemed a 'disruptive element' over there. Thought that was 3% odd and 97% funny and moved on.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

yachtie said:


> But they're all _trying _to dress well. They're not doing the "I'm okay, you're okay" premise that there are no standards or improvements to strive for.
> 
> That's the difference.


Yachtie, if you read Cruiser's posts you would find that he does strive to dress well. And the no standards thing is not quite right, either, but he is only speaking his _opinion_. We should take it as just that, opinions. We've all got 'em so we might as well speak 'em. Although I often disagree with him, I think that he has handled himself as a gentleman and will not trash him just to do so.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Taking this back to the question posed in the OP, perhaps the appropriate rejoinder would be a somewhat startled..."Why Andy, was that the door hitting me in the arse or might I assume our relationship has just been taken to the next level!" :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> dates back to that time that a few of those boys took it upon themselves to go proving that the workshop of Darren Beaman was not in fact 'Darren Beaman's Workshop'. Remember that blowout? * I was the first to cry "loser loser" at the people concerned, both here and at SF*.


Funny how time bore out which side was correct though.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> I fully believe that folks should be able to argue the merits of jeans and the open collar, but at the same time, I think others should be able to argue the contrary just as forcefully.


I'm sure this is directed at me as much as anyone so I will respond. At no point have I ever "argued the merits" of jeans and the open collar. This is a faulty perception that many have that simply isn't true but continues to be perpetuated by a few. As they say in politics, a lie told often enough eventually becomes the truth in the minds of the people.

The fact is, I came into this forum asking a question about Black tie wear, not advocating jeans. This seemed to be a place where I could get my question answered. This has been completely overlooked.

The only thing I have "argued" for in this forum is for tolerance and civility toward others who make different choices. I refuse to look down my nose or make derogatory comments toward someone for no reason other than his choice of dinner jacket lapel or because of the color of his suit or shirt, and I say something when others do this. Saying why you like or dislike one thing over another is one thing; denigrating and belittling people over their choices is quite another.

I spent many years putting on a coat and tie every day to go to a casual work environment where I could have worn jeans. Does this sound like an "anything goes" person as I have been described here?



> The notion that certain words are censored strikes me as silly and off-putting, and makes me feel as though we're being treated like children -- especially odd on a forum that prides itself as a haven for gentlemen.


Perhaps this wouldn't have been necessary if there had been more gentlemanly behavior. It's one thing to use the "s" word to describe the guy who shows up at your daughter's wedding wearing cut offs and a tank top; it's quite another to use it in reference to someone who's only transgression is to go to the grocery store on Saturday morning in jeans and a tee shirt. And then to take it one step further and to suggest that the world would be a better place if those guys at the supermarket would all die for no reason other than the way they were dressed should not be tolerated.

The forum members, not the moderators, should police this type of absurd commentary. Instead, too many defended this hate talk. When wanting to dress nice, look nice, and have discussions about clothing crosses the line into elitist, snobbish attitudes and behavior there is a need for moderators. As a long-time moderator myself in another forum (non-clothing related) I understand the role.

Cruiser


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Cruiser, let me say that no, my previous post was not directed at you. I think you ought to be able to argue your viewpoint as vigorously as you like. As I said above, I'm glad to see a diversity of thought, and I have often argued against the elitist attitudes that surface here. I even wear T-shirts.  However:



Cruiser said:


> The only thing I have "argued" for in this forum is for tolerance and civility toward others who make different choices. I refuse to look down my nose or make derogatory comments toward someone for no reason other than his choice of dinner jacket lapel or because of the color of his suit or shirt, and I say something when others do this. Saying why you like or dislike one thing over another is one thing; denigrating and belittling people over their choices is quite another.


Civility is one thing. No one should call anyone names for his opinions. But, at the same time, there's a difference in preventing namecalling and suffocating dissent. Differing opinions should not be quashed because you, or anyone, doesn't like them. If someone says "DocHolliday is an inbred moron," I can see why a moderator would, and should, get involved. On the other hand, I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to say "The state of dress in this country is disgraceful" or even "Doc, I don't like how you combined those patterns." The first statement is an insult, with no purpose other than to wound. The latter statements are opinion, and the reason we're here. They are insulting only if people choose to be insulted by them. Those souls who are so sensitive that they are hurt by differing opinions are unlikely to thrive in a discussion forum in the first place.



cruiser said:


> Perhaps this wouldn't have been necessary if there had been more gentlemanly behavior. It's one thing to use the "s" word to describe the guy who shows up at your daughter's wedding wearing cut offs and a tank top; it's quite another to use it in reference to someone who's only transgression is to go to the grocery store on Saturday morning in jeans and a tee shirt.


This is where we both agree and disagree. I agree with you, actually, that there's a time and place for denim and a T-shirt. I wear it myself. But I also think others should have the right to express contrary viewpoints. Consider it elitist if you wish, but their opinion is their opinion. It is what it is, and there's no point getting offended over it. Have we all become so thin-skinned that we can't bear to see the s-word, as I must now put it, like I'm a third-grader discussing a profanity? If the forum is really that delicate, how do we ever expect to sustain interesting discussions? Meanwhile, I dare not venture into the Interchange because of the sheer ugliness of the place. It's like there's no middle ground.



cruiser said:


> When wanting to dress nice, look nice, and have discussions about clothing crosses the line into elitist, snobbish attitudes and behavior there is a need for moderators.


Here is where we differ. You seem to want dissenting attitudes silenced, and I think differing opinions are exactly what we need. Cherry picking the viewpoints that are acceptable seems like an enormous task for the moderators, and an enormous waste of their time.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> Here is where we differ. You seem to want dissenting attitudes silenced, and I think differing opinions are exactly what we need. Cherry picking the viewpoints that are acceptable seems like an enormous task for the moderators, and an enormous waste of their time.


Actually, I am the one that others are wanting silenced because of what they see as my dissenting opinions. Look at how many have asked or suggested that I not participate in this forum because they seem to think that I am promoting ideas different from theirs, even though I'm not promoting anything. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that I have ruined the forum by my participation.

For example, I have never promoted or suggested that anyone wear a notch lapel dinner jacket or jeans or a suit without a tie. Those are personal choices; however, let me make any attempt to defend my choice without in any way putting down someone who chooses something different, and look at how personal the attacks toward me become. I invite you to go back and look at some of the things that have been said about me, personally, and tell me that is nothing more than a dissenting opinon. No, at that point it is no longer a discussion of dissenting opinons.

Despite these personal attacks on me by a few, I have never contacted a moderator or asked for any intervention. I suspect that the moderators may have stepped in and initiated some of the things that you mentioned after the attacks on me became quite nasty. But I never requested that.

Cruiser


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Actually, I am the one that others are wanting silenced because of what they see as my dissenting opinions. Look at how many have asked or suggested that I not participate in this forum because they seem to think that I am promoting ideas different from theirs, even though I'm not promoting anything. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that I have ruined the forum by my participation.


Yet I'll again post this, from your previous message:



cruiser said:


> When wanting to dress nice, look nice, and have discussions about clothing crosses the line into elitist, snobbish attitudes and behavior there is a need for moderators.


Scrap it out all you want. I don't care if you post all day, every day, about the virtues of denim, or the comforts of casual clothing. There's a whole forum devoted to streetwear over at SF, and there's no reason it should be off limits here. But don't act hurt when people disagree with you. I'm sure some people think I look ridiculous in some of the stuff I choose to wear. C'est la vie.



cruiser said:


> Despite these personal attacks on me by a few, I have never contacted a moderator or asked for any intervention. I suspect that the moderators may have stepped in and initiated some of the things that you mentioned after the attacks on me became quite nasty. But I never requested that.


And, as I said at the beginning of my second post on this topic, my post was not directed at you.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So many good points in this thread.

Doc has some great points. Playing off his question of how many times can you discuss JAB...I love to read the discussion of shoes and clothes that I probably will never buy. I love pictures of shoes I will probably never buy, I want those discussions to continue and flourish here. The big AE/Alden vs. Euro schism is a great one, one I want to see continue, as it gives me great pictures. I will be frank, when I first logged on I was wearing some crappy shoes. Jan (who has withdrawn from the board), was pivotal in getting me into my first pair of AEs. Jcusey and pkincy were the other two people part of that...and now I never/rarely see them posting on shoes. If it was not for those threads, I would be blithely wearing crappy shoes, maybe even wearing loafers with a suit (yes, I did do that on more than one occasion).

I think what really put people off was constantly being told clothes do not matter or say nothing about their wearer. I cannot count how many times Al Capone was used as an example. Clothes do indeed say something about the wearer.  They may not make a good person a bad person, but dressing well says something about a person. Dressing poorly says something too. Granted it is a complicated issue and you cannot deem someone an axe murderer based on wearing jeans to the grocery store, *but how you dress says volumes about you!*

Stop telling us differently.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Actually, I am the one that others are wanting silenced because of what they see as my dissenting opinions. Look at how many have asked or suggested that I not participate in this forum because they seem to think that I am promoting ideas different from theirs, even though I'm not promoting anything. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that I have ruined the forum by my participation.
> 
> For example, I have never promoted or suggested that anyone wear a notch lapel dinner jacket or jeans or a suit without a tie. Those are personal choices; however, let me make any attempt to defend my choice without in any way putting down someone who chooses something different, and look at how personal the attacks toward me become. I invite you to go back and look at some of the things that have been said about me, personally, and tell me that is nothing more than a dissenting opinon. No, at that point it is no longer a discussion of dissenting opinons.
> 
> ...


big +1...

everybody on the fashion forum is a "gentleman"...untill you disagree with them...


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Well said, Wayfarer.

I appreciate this forum precisely because of the ideals and standards that are shared and communicated by many members. If there were no ideals and standards, there would be no forum, and if the ideals and standards were different, it would be a different forum! I came here to learn about what to look for in durable quality clothing, about matching colours, understanding fabrics, maintaining shoes, elevating my business wardrobe, looking better, all that kind of stuff. I can't tell you that it hasn't been expensive (I've got shoes on the way from Budapest for goodness sake!), but that's what I joined for. In this forum, my view is that it serves no useful purpose to promote or philosophize the virtues the mediocre, the everyman, the average. I already know about that stuff, I know it has its place, and it doesn't help me learn anything.

The pursuit of sartorial improvement or, dare I say it, excellence, is by no means the be all and end all. Life's about balance. But, in this forum, I don't want balance - I want to learn and pursue!

Ok this is slightly stretched but arguments to the contrary remind me of people sitting in maths class saying "oh, but sir! we'll never use this in the real world!". I used to think, great, well don't go to maths class then!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> So many good points in this thread.
> 
> Doc has some great points. Playing off his question of how many times can you discuss JAB...I love to read the discussion of shoes and clothes that I probably will never buy. I love pictures of shoes I will probably never buy, I want those discussions to continue and flourish here. The big AE/Alden vs. Euro schism is a great one, one I want to see continue, as it gives me great pictures. I will be frank, when I first logged on I was wearing some crappy shoes. Jan (who has withdrawn from the board), was pivotal in getting me into my first pair of AEs. Jcusey and pkincy were the other two people part of that...and now I never/rarely see them posting on shoes. If it was not for those threads, I would be blithely wearing crappy shoes, maybe even wearing loafers with a suit (yes, I did do that on more than one occasion).
> 
> ...


Got to agree with this. People make judgements every day about how others dress. I certainly do. It is part and parcel of any clothing related forum.


----------



## Valhson (Mar 26, 2007)

KenR said:


> Got to agree with this. People make judgements every day about how others dress. I certainly do. It is part and parcel of any clothing related forum.


I also agree with this and that ones apearance speaks before your lips even moves. That being said. I also agree with Cruiser to an extent. Berating individuals on this board are counter to the ideals this board was created for. It is a place for one to learn.

Who cares if I am counter to Cruiser on this thing or that. Or if I love seersucker and someone dispises it. I don't have a thing for brogues but can understand ones affection. I love some trad but wouldn't wear it. I don't like italian suits, others love it. They are opinions and we should be gentlemen about it.

If I wanted a fight about clothes I would go to the gq forum or maybe even sf. I am at AAAC for the good conversations and difference in styles. That and I prefer to fight over something a little more hostile in nature than clothing... :aportnoy:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> *but how you dress says volumes about you!*
> 
> Stop telling us differently.


I don't disagree with you on this and I am not telling anyone anything different. Things that I have said have been taken out of context and other things that were said tongue in cheek or in a humorous vein have been treated like sworn testimony.

I pay a great deal of attention to the clothes that I wear. In most situations I am dressed nicer than most of the people around me. I spend a great deal of money to insure that all of my clothes are nicely tailored to fit. Why on earth would I have even come to this forum in the first place if I didn't care about my appearance?

The fact that I wear jeans every day tells you nothing about me except that I'm retired. I don't go to an office to work everyday. But when I did I wore a coat and tie even though jeans would have been fine. And if I do go to a meeting or to church or to a wedding or a funeral, etc. I will be nicely dressed in a well tailored suit, polished shoes, and a nice shirt and tie. I do fall short in the pocket square department.

I've never said that clothing doesn't matter. What I've said is that you had better have something to go with clothing because clothing, no matter how nice, won't give you competence, class, or integrity. Conversely, the mere fact that someone is wearing jeans or khakis doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have competence, class, or integrity.

Having said that, I don't disagree that we make judgements about people on the basis of things like how they are dressed. I do this too. But on occasion I think some take this a little too far and these judgements cross the line.

Just because I wear a notch lapel dinner jacket, like black dress pants, and don't care for brown dress shoes are no reasons for people to display such animosity toward me. When people direct words like "ignorant" and "uninformed" at me because of these choices that I make I'm going to defend them because I am neither ignorant nor uninformed.

Cruiser


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

OK now. Is _everybody_ happy?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I don't disagree with you on this and I am not telling anyone anything different.





Cruiser said:


> To be prejudiced is to form an opinion or judge something or someone without knowledge of the facts or nature of the situation; therefore, to be prejudiced about someone's clothing or them because of their clothing seems to me to speak very negatively about the person forming the opinion.


Two contradicting statements. I provided the link so people can read the entire flow. This is just the latest example I have taken part in, there are many others. Al Capone for instance. I think we all remember him being referenced repeatedly, no?


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Well, I see my efforts to avoid this becoming All About Cruiser have been entirely unsuccessful. This is, I think, part of the problem. It's like the black suit thread, only it pops up in thread after thread. I wish we could all just say our piece and let it be. It's an unwinnable argument for both sides.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Two contradicting statements.


Once again you've taken something out of context, the very thing I was talking about. The mere fact that I, like most everyone else, make judgements about people on the basis of clothing doesn't make it right. I didn't say it was a good thing, I just said that I do it too like most other people. The issue is one of degree rather than whether we do it or not. For example, there is a huge difference between speeding and murder, but both involve someone failing to obey the law.

It's when we let these judgements reach the extremes that we cross the line. And some here have done that. When someone sees himself as "superior" (to use the word he used) to others becaue he is dressed nicer or wishes for the deaths of others because he doesn't like how they are dressed, then we have gone too far in these judgements of others.

Cruiser


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> Well, I see my efforts to avoid this becoming All About Cruiser have been entirely unsuccessful. This is, I think, part of the problem. It's like the black suit thread, only it pops up in thread after thread. I wish we could all just say our piece and let it be. It's an unwinnable argument for both sides.


Doc, always makes me laugh. (To quote Kurt Russell)

You are correct Doc. I have had my say. It will not be repeated again. I shall ignore certain things from this point forward.

I will say though, Jan should return. You are missed Jan.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> I don't disagree ....because I am neither ignorant nor uninformed.
> 
> Cruiser


This is kind of what I mean. Cruiser, your logic is flawless, your points are correct, but I wish I was hearing more about your clothing and attention to it than more stuff which is accepted and good common sense but not growing our collective sartorial knowledge.

Ps. I know you were just responding to another message so it's a bit unfair of me to single this particular post out. I'm sorry for doing that.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

KenR said:


> OK now. Is _everybody_ happy?


pretty content,Ken.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

So, now that we've all got that out of our systems, can we go back to an earnest discussion of tramp-stamps and the women who sport them?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

DocHolliday said:


> If someone says "DocHolliday is an inbred moron," I can see why a moderator would, and should, get involved.


HEY!!! Don't you go calling Doc an inbred moron or you'll get an infraction.

Besides, as far as I know, there was no inbreeding involved. :devil:


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Besides, as far as I know, there was no inbreeding involved. :devil:


True, some titles must be earned. And I've worked long and hard for my moron credentials.

.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*If allowed a parting message.....*



Wayfarer said:


> What would you say as your parting message?


If allowed a parting message.....

_"I just want to know one thing, did my girlfriend put you up to this?"_


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Capt Ron said:


> If allowed a parting message.....
> 
> _"I just want to know one thing, did my girlfriend put you up to this?"_


But what if you never had a girlfriend?


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

I hate to throw myself back into this discussion, but I'd like to point out that it's ridiculous to believe what you wear says _anything_ about your character. I've met some pretty awful people that were fabulously well-dressed. In turn, some of the people I respect the most don't care a bit about what they wear and are perfectly happy shopping at Target.

The false notion that moral superiority attaches to one's wardrobe or outfit has tainted this forum for a long time. It steers discussion away from style and toward mind-numbing assertions of correctness. All the while, everyone becomes increasingly close-minded because they can't appreciate style that is eccentric or different from what is expected. Ironically, members seem to dress worse and worse the more they obsess with dressing the 'right' way. All the talk of Jos A. Bank and Allen-Edmonds doesn't bother me because they're inexpensive: it's monotonous and stifling. People seem to have difficulty seeing beyond the horizon.

Everyone needs to loosen up and take themselves less seriously (something I've found myself guilty of). It's just clothes.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

The belief that clothes don't reveal a person's character is not a universal concept; it is simply a popular belief in America/Britain today. So, to say that "character" makes the man is just as "right" as to say clothing makes the man. None is more correct than any other, yet none are more wrong than another. There is no "end all, be all" definition of man.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

However, I am curious about the validity of popular opinion. If enough people believe in something, does that belief indeed become correct by virtue of the popularity?


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Scoundrel said:


> However, I am curious about the validity of popular opinion. If enough people believe in something, does that belief indeed become correct by virtue of the popularity?


It depends upon the belief. 
If the belief is: Mozart was the greatest composer of classical music, then it could become true.

If the belief is: Drinking two gallons of water a day will permit you to live forever, then it couldn't.

It's all about context. (did anyone else notice we celebrated the turn of the millennium a year early? sometimes the facts don't matter)


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

mafoofan said:


> I hate to throw myself back into this discussion, but I'd like to point out that it's ridiculous to believe what you wear says _anything_ about your character. I've met some pretty awful people that were fabulously well-dressed. In turn, some of the people I respect the most don't care a bit about what they wear and are perfectly happy shopping at Target.


All true- but how you dress has _everything_ to do with how you're perceived.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

radix023 said:


> It depends upon the belief.
> If the belief is: Mozart was the greatest composer of classical music, then it could become true.
> 
> If the belief is: Drinking two gallons of water a day will permit you to live forever, then it couldn't.
> ...


Y2K was more catchy.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

yachtie said:


> All true- but how you dress has _everything_ to do with how you're perceived.


Exactly right. But, ironically, dressing well or more formally often makes others perceive you in a _negative_ light. My personal rule is to dress to a level of formality mandatory for the situation and consider anything within that limit fair game.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

yachtie said:


> All true- but how you dress has _everything_ to do with how you're perceived.


Sure, but if I'm wearing a t-shirt, jeans and a camo cap, it doesn't mean I always dress like a bum...it just means I've been fishin'. I know what you are saying though, and outside of a few activities, I always try to dress well.


----------



## Wizard (Feb 29, 2008)

mafoofan said:


> Exactly right. But, ironically, dressing well or more formally often makes others perceive you in a _negative_ light. My personal rule is to dress to a level of formality mandatory for the situation and consider anything within that limit fair game.


But how much do you really care about the opinion of people that would see dressing well as a negative? That type of person is like a crab in a bucket. They would rather pull you down to their level than make any effort to raise themselves up.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Wizard said:


> But how much do you really care about the opinion of people that would see dressing well as a negative? That type of person is like a crab in a bucket. They would rather pull you down to their level than make any effort to raise themselves up.


I don't think it's this simple. The vast, vast majority of people dress casually these days, and deliberately and conspicuously dressing "well" -- i.e., much more formally than anyone else -- can backfire. A 21-year-old guy who insists on wearing a three-piece suit, bowtie and fedora likely is going to win little favor at his new business-casual job. People are going to think him odd, that he can't read basic social signals, that he doesn't know how to fit in. And, in that case, I'd say they're right. Especially in the workplace we must adapt ourselves to the situation at hand, but I'd suggest this is also true for life in general. Being well dressed has more to do with understanding event-appropriate attire than it does with getting up every day and putting on a coat and tie.


----------



## Wizard (Feb 29, 2008)

DocHolliday said:


> I don't think it's this simple. The vast, vast majority of people dress casually these days, and deliberately and conspicuously dressing "well" -- i.e., much more formally than anyone else -- can backfire. A 21-year-old guy who insists on wearing a three-piece suit, bowtie and fedora likely is going to win little favor at his new business-casual job. People are going to think him odd, that he can't read basic social signals, that he doesn't know how to fit in. And, in that case, I'd say they're right. Especially in the workplace we must adapt ourselves to the situation at hand, but I'd suggest this is also true for life in general. Being well dressed has more to do with understanding event-appropriate attire than it does with getting up every day and putting on a coat and tie.


Dressing "well" doesn't have to mean a 3p suit. And just because everyone _else is doing it_ doesn't mean that I have to. I won't let my daughter get away with that reasoning why should I let myself? Besides, I am _not_ 21 and I _am_ the president of the company--I can dress any way I want. 

The problem is with "deliberately and conspicuously dressing 'well'" is if it is used like a tactic to put others down instead of just dressing nicely for yourself and/or its own sake. You can dress a level or two above everyone else and set an example without throwing it in anyone's face.

That said, I think we may be trying to say the same thing with different words.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Sure, but if I'm wearing a t-shirt, jeans and a camo cap, it doesn't mean I always dress like a bum...it just means I've been fishin'. I know what you are saying though, and outside of a few activities, I always try to dress well.


But if you're dressed in a shirt,tie and sport jacket that would mean you're doing something formal for that day.


----------

