# PLEASE Iron Your Shirts!



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Ahhh - an ideal summer look -









Seersucker, madras tie and OCBD. *But*, the shirt collar looks as if it might be preparing for flight! And this is *far* from the most egregious example.

Newly minted sartorialists, freshly emerged from T-shirts, cargo shorts and flip-flops, propelled by boundless enthusiasm fired by novelty, and blissfully unaware of the tenet that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing happen upon photos of other newly minted sartorialists wearing poorly ironed and badly rumpled OCBD's. This is not fresh! This is not Sprez! This is simple ignorance. And slovenly.

While an OCBD collar resembling a pine plank is neither necessary or desirable, ignorance is not a virtue. Either learn to iron, or pay someone who can.


----------



## style417 (Jun 28, 2014)

I admit that I don't always re-press the collar when I should. I'll try to be more careful in the future sir! 

(BTW I hope you are enjoying your 4th!)


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

While in general I believe that ironing is something that should happen to other people, when I do have to wash one of my 'requires ironing' shirts, believe me, the collar gets pressed along with the rest of the shirt. I mean, really? Where arose the concept of ironing the body of the shirt and not the collar? Such--such--incongnoscenti!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

style417 said:


> I'll try to be more careful in the future sir!
> 
> (BTW I hope you are enjoying your 4th!)


OK, but don't let it happen again!









And a happy 4th to you as well!


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

As in the picture, the collar is pretty much the only part of the shirt you see 100% of the time. It's the only part of the shirt I will NOT skimp on - the collar is what everyone sees. If it's a shirt that won't be worn with a tie, the placket gets the same attention to detail as the collar.

Great looking rig, otherwise.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> While in general I believe that ironing is something that should happen to other people, when I do have to wash one of my 'requires ironing' shirts, believe me, the collar gets pressed along with the rest of the shirt. I mean, really? Where arose the concept of ironing the body of the shirt and not the collar? Such--such--incongnoscenti!


Sarge, back in the good ol' U.S.A., what happened to troops with badly maintained uniforms?

Gosh, in the U.S.A.F. they didn't issue us a rifle, they issued us an iron and a mop!


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

Question for you fellas: 

I have a lot of shirts and only so much closet. I know the general rule is to space shirts at least a couple inches apart or so, but I simply don't have the capacity at the moment! 
what this means is that collars are pressing into each other...sometimes messing up my ironing job. My only other strategy would be to fold or store separately some shirts while leaving others accessible on the hanger, but then they'll need to be ironed again anyways to get the creases out. Any suggestions for large collections?


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> Sarge, back in the good ol' U.S.A., what happened to troops with badly maintained uniforms?
> 
> Gosh, in the U.S.A.F. they didn't issue us a rifle, they issued us an iron and a mop!
> 
> View attachment 11867


Gosh, it was years and years ago that the Army first issued camouflage uniforms and the first thing they did was forbid ironing and starch because that negated the whole idea of concealment. Naturally the old sergeant majors bitched, moaned, whined and sniveled until some lily-livered commander finally said, "Oh, alright, be that way. Go ahead and starch your camo--but don't let us catch you trying to require the young troops doing it." As the Old Guard died off (or at faded away, as old soldiers do) the concept of the starched, strack camo uniform died with it.

As far as dress and semi-dress uniforms, they were permanent press forty years ago. It seemed that someone figured it was less expensive to give the troops non-iron uniforms than to provide laundry service!


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

adoucett said:


> Question for you fellas:
> 
> I have a lot of shirts and only so much closet. I know the general rule is to space shirts at least a couple inches apart or so, but I simply don't have the capacity at the moment!
> what this means is that collars are pressing into each other...sometimes messing up my ironing job. My only other strategy would be to fold or store separately some shirts while leaving others accessible on the hanger, but then they'll need to be ironed again anyways to get the creases out. Any suggestions for large collections?


I have limited closet space as well, so I understand where you're coming from. There is absolutely no way I can space shirts by a couple inches.

I hang my shirts in the closet wrinkled. I remove the shirt I want to wear, iron it, wear it, then place it in the laundry hamper at the end of the day.

Perhaps hanging shirts in the closet before ironing is a possible strategy.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

I should probably get an iron . . .


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> As the Old Guard died off (or at faded away, as old soldiers do) the concept of the starched, strack camo uniform died with it.











A better definition of tragedy could *not* be offered!

Gosh, how I remember so fondly those marches back from tech school in the 95 degree, 95% humidity of a Biloxi summer in my thick, stiff, extra heavily starched fatigues!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

adoucett said:


> Any suggestions for large collections?


I have too many shirts. (And socks, and ties, etc. Hmmm . . . . this suggests a Weird Al version of _I'm__ Too Sexy!_)

My method (Note I did not say solution.) is to iron as many as I feel like ironing, fold and stack 'em, and touch 'em up when needed before wearing.


----------



## ricardofrancisco (Jan 1, 2013)

Now I wonder how many shirts an average forumer here would own.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

ricardofrancisco said:


> Now I wonder how many shirts an average forumer here would own.


Create a poll and find out! I'm interested as well as to what is the "ideal number"


----------



## HerrDavid (Aug 23, 2012)

I always iron my collars, but there's certainly a good trad precedent for leisureclass's self-consciously "rumpled" look (see, e.g., Plimpton, Updike, Buckley, etc.) and he pulls it off well. In fact, I think our waywt thread would be improved immensely if more posters had leisureclass's sense of style!


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

gamma68 said:


> I have limited closet space as well, so I understand where you're coming from. There is absolutely no way I can space shirts by a couple inches.
> 
> I hang my shirts in the closet wrinkled. I remove the shirt I want to wear, iron it, wear it, then place it in the laundry hamper at the end of the day.
> 
> Perhaps hanging shirts in the closet before ironing is a possible strategy.


This is what I do, I don't have space to space them out. I also only iron OCBDs and proper dress shirts, I don't even bother with linen, madras, or seersucker


----------



## ThePopinjay (Nov 12, 2013)

My thoughts exactly, HerrDavid. Though I've always ironed my shirts, I'm always a fan of LC's look.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

If I'm wearing an OCBD or other shirt casually, I press it lightly or not at all. With a coat and tie, I do it propely. I used to be of the camp that wore rumpled chinos straight from the dryer. Now even those get at least a bit of a press, especially after one of my esteemed blog readers quite violently asked me to "try a f***ing iron". Now I'm not sure what the difference is between a f***ing iron and a clothes iron, but as soon as he lets me know I'll be right on it!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

As I recall, Patrick, who is no one's idea of a slovenly dresser, recommends not ironing collars on BB OCBD's as the lack of ironing accentuates the collar roll. Just sayin'...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL. Boys, boys, boys! The solution is simple...get yourself a gal with an iron and who is willing to use it! :teacha:


----------



## dorji (Feb 18, 2010)

I feel bad for you, flanderian. I hope your weekend improves.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Boys, boys, boys! The solution is simple...get yourself a gal with an iron and who is willing to use it! :teacha:


Lol I won't let my wife near our laundry because I'm so OCD with what gets dried, how stuff gets ironed, etc. And we're both perfectly okay with this because i actually enjoy that chore lol


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Oldsarge said:


> Gosh, it was years and years ago that the Army first issued camouflage uniforms and the first thing they did was forbid ironing and starch because that negated the whole idea of concealment. Naturally the old sergeant majors bitched, moaned, whined and sniveled until some lily-livered commander finally said, "Oh, alright, be that way. Go ahead and starch your camo--but don't let us catch you trying to require the young troops doing it." As the Old Guard died off (or at faded away, as old soldiers do) the concept of the starched, strack camo uniform died with it.


Sarge, I suspect that's also the reason it took so long to go to rough-out boots, though they're an obviously better choice. Can't get that spit shine on 'em without a Guardsman's fire & wax ordeal.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Yeah, that really cheesed me. The Army demanded 'well-polished' footwear right up to the time I retired and then went back to the rough-out boot they had back in WWII. Oh well, at least the didn't return to Patton's mad idea that officers should wear a necktie into battle.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

orange fury said:


> Lol I won't let my wife near our laundry because I'm so OCD with what gets dried, how stuff gets ironed, etc. And we're both perfectly okay with this because i actually enjoy that chore lol


This. Mrs. 32 expects me to iron her clothes, but chick stuff is lot different than men's wear, lots of seams that don't seem to belong.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

dorji said:


> I feel bad for you, flanderian. I hope your weekend improves.


I'm having a lovely weekend, thank you!

You too!


----------



## dr.butcher (May 28, 2014)

Best way is to iron the shirt right before wearing it, or the night before, and give the collar lots of TLC. Just to the left of this topic, any gents here use starch spray when ironing their shirts?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

dr.butcher said:


> Best way is to iron the shirt right before wearing it, or the night before, and give the collar lots of TLC. Just to the left of this topic, any gents here use starch spray when ironing their shirts?


I always use starch. And I launder, air dry and iron my shirts. The less left up to cleaners, the better, at least where I live.


----------



## dr.butcher (May 28, 2014)

adoucett said:


> Create a poll and find out! I'm interested as well as to what is the "ideal number"


Is this overall? Or just formal Mon-Fri shirts not including the low-end of casual weekend or holiday shirts and the high-end of black or white tie shirts? Shouldn't Mon-Fri shirts be at least enough for two weeks, (i.e. ten) but more ideally at least two dozen, more if some of the shirts are a little loud and can't enter the rotation as frequently? Plus you need enough ties so that you can match one to each shirt/suit/shoe combination without seeming like you are repeating the same combo each time and in that case the number would hover around infinity I guess.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

dr.butcher said:


> Best way is to iron the shirt right before wearing it, or the night before, and give the collar lots of TLC. Just to the left of this topic, any gents here use starch spray when ironing their shirts?


Nope.

I have found over 40 years the single greatest aid to ironing is washing shirts with Downey liquid fabric softner. Night and day. Dryer sheets do nothing in this regard.

Edit: Beyond that, a good steam iron and spray bottle of water.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> Nope.
> 
> I have found over 40 years the single greatest aid to ironing is washing shirts with *Downey liquid fabric softner*. Night and day. Dryer sheets do nothing in this regard.
> 
> Edit: Beyond that, a good steam iron and spray bottle of water.


You can't be serious. Does your bicycle have training wheels?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> You can't be serious. Does your bicycle have training wheels?


Entirely serious. 40 years of serious. You can't argue with results.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Is that pictured shirt really oxford cloth? I've never seen it pucker like that. But I buy non-iron OCBD so that may be it. It's enough to worry about my dress shirts being wrinkled. I don't want to deal with caring for casual shirts that much.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> Entirely serious. 40 years of serious. You can't argue with results.


I loathe fabric softener. Then again, I like towels that have been hung to dry in the sun so that they nearly stand on their own. Talk about an invigorating way to cap a shower...


----------



## leisureclass (Jan 31, 2011)

I'm glad to say that I was away from the internet over the long weekend, so I missed this when it first when up.

It's incredibly disrespectful for you to post a photo of mine that is of me, not attribute it it to me, and then insult me in the process.

I can wear anything as pressed or unpressed as I like.

It must be nice to insult people while racking up 10,000 posts and never actually posting photos of yourself in the process.

There is a reason that I have stopped posting regularly here, or posting photos at all, and stuff like this is exactly why I have stopped.

Thanks to all the firends who spoke out in my defense.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

I thought that picture looked familiar! Yeah, not a classy move Flandarian. To be honest I really cant tell what makes the collar look like its "about to take flight." What's that even mean?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

leisureclass said:


> I'm glad to say that I was away from the internet over the long weekend, so I missed this when it first when up.
> 
> It's incredibly disrespectful for you to post a photo of mine that is of me, not attribute it it to me, and then insult me in the process.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry if you were offended, by something that was said partly in jest to make a point.

As to posting a photo of you, I don't even know who you are! Other than someone who takes themselves far more seriously than they have any reason to. And considering your thin-skinned overreaction to a jest, I have no desire to.

As you must certainly know, photos get blogged, re-blogged and re-blogged again. I make a point, when possible, of always posting a source with a link when something is *original content *out of respect for the original blogger. When something is found, as was the photo in question in an anonymous archive among many other images, I do not.

You are, of course, free to wear clothing as rumpled as you wish.

Good day to you, sir.


----------



## ThePopinjay (Nov 12, 2013)

Reuben said:


> I thought that picture looked familiar! Yeah, not a classy move Flandarian. To be honest I really cant tell what makes the collar look like its "about to take flight." What's that even mean?


I'll second this.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Reuben said:


> I thought that picture looked familiar! Yeah, not a classy move Flandarian. To be honest I really cant tell what makes the collar look like its "about to take flight." What's that even mean?


Third. Honestly, I don't see anything overtly wrong with the collar as pictured.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Flanderian said:


> Ahhh - an ideal summer look -
> 
> View attachment 11865
> 
> ...


You couldn't have picked a worse example to pillory. That shirt collar isn't "wrinkled" as much as it is "puckered" along the seam, and - worn with two other classically rumpled fabrics (madras and seersucker) - is not the slightest bit incongruent.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Boys, boys, boys! The solution is simple...get yourself a gal with an iron and who is willing to use it! :teacha:


I thought I did, Eagle, but a couple of years into the marriage, she switched gears on me! Thank the Lord for professional cleaners (and their nifty ironing machines)...


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Topsider said:


> You couldn't have picked a worse example to pillory. That shirt collar isn't "wrinkled" as much as it is "puckered" along the seam, and - worn with two other classically rumpled fabrics (madras and seersucker) - is not the slightest bit incongruent.


Yup, raised no feathers of mine. Paired with some slick worsted thing, it might raise an eyebrow.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

I don't think the example used by Flanderian is a great one either (as per Topsider), but I've read his posts long enough to know that he certainly meant no malice by it. While I understand leisureclass being upset by the circumstances, I don't think the pillorying and piling on Flanderian is warranted.

There are many reasons to display outrage; I don't think this is one of them. I'm also willing to give Flanderian an unequivocal benefit of the doubt...


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Tiger said:


> I understand leisureclass being upset by the circumstances, I don't think the pillorying and piling on Flanderian is warranted.


So, you wouldn't mind being called an ignorant slob? Maybe you need to re-read the OP...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Topsider said:


> So, you wouldn't mind being called an ignorant slob? Maybe you need to re-read the OP...


Perhaps _you_ need to re-read _my _post! I wrote, "While I understand leisureclass being upset by the circumstances, I don't think the pillorying and piling on Flanderian is warranted."

I completely understand why leisureclass is annoyed - I would be, too. However, Flanderian did not know it was a picture of another AAAC, and he apologized. All I've asked for is to give Flanderian the benefit of the doubt - he is not someone who would typically seek to hurt/embarrass another forum member.

Hope that clarifies!


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Flanderian did not know it was a picture of another AAAC, and he apologized.


"I'm sorry if you were offended" is not an apology. He then proceeded to tell LC that he "took himself far too seriously" and was "thin-skinned." That sure as hell isn't an apology.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Topsider said:


> "I'm sorry if you were offended" is not an apology. He then proceeded to tell LC that he "took himself far too seriously" and was "thin-skinned." That sure as hell isn't an apology.


Fair enough, Topsider. I do think it began as a legitimate apology, but the other stuff you mentioned certainly attenuated it. However, that was not my main point. It is, however, a very valid one...


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Fair enough, Topsider. I do think it began as a legitimate apology, but the other stuff you mentioned certainly attenuated it. However, that was not my main point. It is, however, a very valid one...


We can agree to disagree.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Topsider said:


> We can agree to disagree.


I meant that _*your *_point was a very valid one!

I guess we'll disagree as to whether it was an apology or not.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Tiger said:


> I guess we'll disagree as to whether it was an apology or not.


Yes, that's what I meant.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Topsider said:


> "I'm sorry if you were offended" is not an apology. He then proceeded to tell LC that he "took himself far too seriously" and was "thin-skinned." That sure as hell isn't an apology.


I have to agree, actually. Flanderian should take the high road and offer a sincere apology without preconditions.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Tiger said:


> I completely understand why leisureclass is annoyed - I would be, too. However, Flanderian did not know it was a picture of another AAAC, and he apologized. All I've asked for is to give Flanderian the benefit of the doubt - he is not someone who would typically seek to hurt/embarrass another forum member.


With nearly 10,000 posts, flanderian should probably have realized that the picture was of leisureclass. I have far fewer posts after a year and a half on this forum and knew who it was right away.

In any event, I think it's rude to criticize someone's photo in this venue when one has never posted a photo of oneself in the WAYWT thread. Others at this forum have committed the same faux pas.

Are any moderators ever present here? Boorish behavior is becoming more commonplace, IMO.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

gamma68 said:


> With nearly 10,000 posts, flanderian should probably have realized that the picture was of leisureclass. I have far fewer posts after a year and a half on this forum and knew who it was right away.
> 
> In any event, I think it's rude to criticize someone's photo in this venue when one has never posted a photo of oneself in the WAYWT thread. Others at this forum have committed the same faux pas.
> 
> Are any moderators ever present here? Boorish behavior is becoming more commonplace, IMO.


Perhaps, perhaps not. I"ve been a member (and lurker prior to that) for many years, and while I occasionally look at the WAYWT threads, there are some people I would know immediately, and others that I wouldn't know at all.

I asked that Flanderian get the benefit of the doubt (i.e., that he didn't know his target was an AAAC member). I've already written that I completely understand leisureclass being upset, and I now agree- thanks to Topsider pointing out something I glossed over - that the initial apology was diluted by the thoughts that followed it.

At this point, I believe it's in the hands of Flanderian and leisureclass to handle as they see fit...


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Criticizing another person sartorially without posting a photo of oneself occasionally does not earn the benefit of the doubt. I mean this in a broader sense, not to pile on flanderian.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

gamma68 said:


> Criticizing another person sartorially without posting a photo of oneself occasionally does not earn the benefit of the doubt. I mean this in a broader sense, not to pile on flanderian.


I respectfully disagree. Don't think I should be required to post a picture of myself prior to lampooning, say, a typical New York look of black Ed Hardy t-shirt, black basketball shorts, red sneakers, and multiple body piercings. Ours is a forum where one should be free to express ideas without having to post selfies first...


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Tiger said:


> I respectfully disagree. Don't think I should be required to post a picture of myself prior to lampooning, say, a typical New York look of black Ed Hardy t-shirt, black basketball shorts, red sneakers, and multiple body piercings. Ours is a forum where one should be free to express ideas without having to post selfies first...


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Tiger said:


> I respectfully disagree. Don't think I should be required to post a picture of myself prior to lampooning, say, a typical New York look of black Ed Hardy t-shirt, black basketball shorts, red sneakers, and multiple body piercings. Ours is a forum where one should be free to express ideas without having to post selfies first...


Some people have been active on this forum for YEARS and have NEVER posted a photo of themselves in the WAYWT thread. For those folks to criticize another forum member sartorially without offering their own photo of themselves "doing it better" is downright rude.

Moreover, If you wouldn't say it to the AAAT member's face, then you shouldn't say it at all.

Sorry, we have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Topsider said:


>


Completely false; please re-read gamma68's message. I've fought against the "straw man" attacks repeatedly - I'm not one to use such artifices!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

gamma68 said:


> Some people have been active on this forum for YEARS and have NEVER posted a photo of themselves in the WAYWT thread. For those folks to criticize another forum member sartorially without offering their own photo of themselves "doing it better" is downright rude. Moreover, If you wouldn't say it to the AAAT member's face, then you shouldn't say it at all.
> 
> Sorry, we have to agree to disagree.


I would completely agree with you _*if*_ the person doing the criticizing was knowingly doing it to a forum member. That's not what happened here, according to Flanderian.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Tiger said:


> I would completely agree with you _*if*_ the person doing the criticizing was knowingly doing it to a forum member. That's not what happened here, according to Flanderian.


It happens more often than you'd think.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

gamma68 said:


> Some people have been active on this forum for YEARS and have NEVER posted a photo of themselves in the WAYWT thread. For those folks to criticize another forum member sartorially without offering their own photo of themselves "doing it better" is downright rude.
> 
> Moreover, If you wouldn't say it to the AAAT member's face, then you shouldn't say it at all.
> 
> Sorry, we have to agree to disagree.


One hundred percent wrong. You put your photo up, you are asking to be critiqued. That's the whole point, and the value of the criticism has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the critic has posted photos of himself. I'm not sure where you are getting this idea that there is some rule that this operates on you-show-yours-and-I'll-show-mine. The only person I've ever heard say this is you. I'll stay out of whether posting a photo from WAYWT on a different thread is appropriate or not. I don't really have an opinion on that. But to suggest that you have to post photos of yourself so that you can critique people who are asking to be critiqued is kind of silly, in my view.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> One hundred percent wrong. You put your photo up, you are asking to be critiqued. That's the whole point, and the value of the criticism has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the critic has posted photos of himself. I'm not sure where you are getting this idea that there is some rule that this operates on you-show-yours-and-I'll-show-mine. The only person I've ever heard say this is you. I'll stay out of whether posting a photo from WAYWT on a different thread is appropriate or not. I don't really have an opinion on that. But to suggest that you have to post photos of yourself so that you can critique people who are asking to be critiqued is kind of silly, in my view.


Critiquing in polite, gentlemanly fashion is one thing. Trashing is another. That's like being a sniper, particularly if the person taking pot shots has never posted any photos of themselves.

I don't think the WAYWT thread is expressly for the purpose of seeking a critique. Personally, I view that thread primarily to gather ideas for putting together my own rigs. People enjoy sharing images of themselves wearing a favorite jacket or suit, etc.

In any event, you're cordially invited to post your own carefully curated ensemble in the WAYWT thread.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Completely false; please re-read gamma68's message. I've fought against the "straw man" attacks repeatedly - I'm not one to use such artifices!


We're discussing a photo of a minimally wrinkled collar, and you attempt to equate it with a "black Ed Hardy t-shirt, black basketball shorts, red sneakers, and multiple body piercings."

If the straw fits, wear it.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> One hundred percent wrong. You put your photo up, you are asking to be critiqued. That's the whole point, and the value of the criticism has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the critic has posted photos of himself. I'm not sure where you are getting this idea that there is some rule that this operates on you-show-yours-and-I'll-show-mine. The only person I've ever heard say this is you. I'll stay out of whether posting a photo from WAYWT on a different thread is appropriate or not. I don't really have an opinion on that. But to suggest that you have to post photos of yourself so that you can critique people who are asking to be critiqued is kind of silly, in my view.


Wisdom.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

arkirshner said:


> Wisdom.


I wouldn't set the bar that low.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Topsider said:


> We're discussing a photo of a minimally wrinkled collar, and you attempt to equate it with a "black Ed Hardy t-shirt, black basketball shorts, red sneakers, and multiple body piercings."
> 
> If the straw fits, wear it.


We were discussing a principle (having to post a picture of oneself prior to critiquing another), not sartorial particulars. You may have missed my point, or perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear, but knock off the straw man nonsense. It is simply not true!


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Topsider said:


> I wouldn't set the bar that low.


In one sense you are right. On the other hand, in the context of where this thread was going 32's comment strikes me as wise.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

arkirshner said:


> In one sense you are right. On the other hand, in the context of where this thread was going 32's comment strikes me as wise.


This is wiser.



gamma68 said:


> Critiquing in polite, gentlemanly fashion is one thing. Trashing is another.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Topsider said:


> This is wiser.


As an abstract statement I agree there is a distinction between critiquing and trashing. But calling someone's collar slovenly hardly rises to the level of trashing.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

arkirshner said:


> As an abstract statement I agree there is a distinction between critiquing and trashing. But calling someone's collar slovenly hardly rises to the level of trashing.


"Ignorant slob." Might as well be accurate.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

arkirshner said:


> As an abstract statement I agree there is a distinction between critiquing and trashing. But calling someone's collar slovenly hardly rises to the level of trashing.


A wise man once said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything."


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

gamma68 said:


> A wise man once said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything."


"I find these remarks rather insensitive, considering that the SA's primary mission is to help people less fortunate than those who have lots of time to visit thrifts and stock their wardrobes or find various items to flip." --Gamma68, 7/6/14

You really should follow that advice. Seriously.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

^ So should you.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Topsider said:


> ^ So should you.


Gamma has a vendetta against me that he has chosen to conduct in public. I have extended an olive branch via PM at least once and he has refused to accept it. That is his choice. I think that he needs to grow a thicker skin, but that is my opinion. I also think that he should reconsider the wisdom of engaging me in debates. If he calls me out, I will respond. Vociferously. If he does not call me out, then I have little reason to engage him. This said, if he, or anyone, says silly things, it is not out of line to point out silliness.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> Gamma has a vendetta against me that he has chosen to conduct in public. I have extended an olive branch via PM at least once and he has refused to accept it. That is his choice. I think that he needs to grow a thicker skin, but that is my opinion. I also think that he should reconsider the wisdom of engaging me in debates. If he calls me out, I will respond. Vociferously. If he does not call me out, then I have little reason to engage him. This said, if he, or anyone, says silly things, it is not out of line to point out silliness.


My recollection is receiving PMs laced with profanity. I have no use for that. You are henceforth blocked.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

gamma68 said:


> My recollection is receiving PMs laced with profanity. I have no use for that. You are henceforth blocked.


"Henceforth?" That sounds familiar:

Henceforth, you are blocked. I don't have time for nonsense, incessant whining or verbal abuse.​
Last edited by gamma68; March 18th, 2014 at 11:18.
​


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> "Henceforth?" That sounds familiar:
> 
> Henceforth, you are blocked. I don't have time for nonsense, incessant whining or verbal abuse.​Last edited by gamma68; March 18th, 2014 at 11:18.
> ​


I guess I gave you benefit of the doubt. That was a mistake. Now blocked PERMANENTLY.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I would imagine that anyone who posts here regularly will be able to perceive quite readily that Flanderian is hardly a mean spirited fellow.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Shaver said:


> I would imagine that anyone who posts here regularly will be able to perceive quite readily that Flanderian is hardly a mean spirited fellow.


Not from this thread.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Topsider said:


> Not from this thread.


----------



## dionattilio (Feb 24, 2009)

adoucett said:


> Create a poll and find out! I'm interested as well as to what is the "ideal number"


Poll or no poll, I am positive that the ideal number of shirts = _n _+ 1

with "n" being the the number of shirts you currently own.

Though in some circumstances the ideal number of shirts = _d_ - 1

with "d" being the number of shirts that would lead to your wife divorcing you

I don't want to even start on the forumla for ironing shirts/collars...


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Ha! I'm totally stealing that.


----------

