# The Shirt From Hell -- The appalling rise of the smelly, sweaty, scratchy no-iron shirt.



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

*The Shirt From Hell*

*The appalling rise of the smelly, sweaty, scratchy no-iron shirt.*

I'd like to give you the shirt off my back.

But you'd be crazy to accept it. That's because the shirt in question is one of the no-iron models that are ubiquitous in middle-class department stores these days, and wearing it makes me want to jump out of my skin.

The no-iron shirt may be the greatest fashion crime of our age. A grotesque invention, it is the satanic love-child of chemistry and retailing, combining all the worst qualities of plywood, vinyl, and embalming fluid in a garment that would be more at home in the Spanish Inquisition than the cubicles of the modern workplace. . .

https://www.slate.com/articles/styl...lly_scratchy_shirts_are_the_greatest_fas.html


----------



## andrel42 (Sep 7, 2011)

Strange ... I have been wearing Brooks Brothers non-iron shirts for years and have never experienced any of these symptoms and I do iron them of course simply they stay (nearly) wrinkle free all day!


----------



## Wales (Jun 9, 2012)

I think it really depends on the make. I am generally in the "non-non-iron" shirt camp. In fact, I don't own any non-iron shirts. However, I used to wear almost exclusively BB non-irons because I ironed my own shirts (was on a budget!) and it was so much easier going through seven of those in a week than it would be to hand iron the shirts I wear now. Aside from the dreadful cut of those shirts I used to wear, the fabric was ok. Not the softest cotton, but certainly not offensive. With that said, I have seen many non-iron shirts, particularly in white (I wonder why the whites tend to be harsher) with which I could probably sand the finish off a table!!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL....and the shirt from hell gives rise to the overstatement from hell! Yes, no?  While I might prefer the 'must-be-ironed fabrics, the no-iron shirts are not quite as bad as the author of the article describes them to be.


----------



## Robert Patrick (Apr 14, 2004)

I have 2 no-iron shirts and have noticed them to be much less breathable. I guess 'no-iron' is to 2012 what polyester-blends were to 1972. Maybe no-iron will fall out of favor in a few years and we will get back to cotton the way it was intended to be.

In Orlando once a couple of years ago on business, I found myself in need of a plain white dress shirt and went in a Nordstrom only to find EVERY shirt they had was no-iron.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

I'm with you Brother, I tried them one once and couldn't stand it.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I keep one on hand in case I wake up very late and haven't ironed a shirt the night before. But, like most emergency gear, I don't expect it to be comfortable or stylish.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I haven't owned a dress shirt that has to be ironed in more years than I can remember, if I _ever_ owned one. Never had the slightest problem with them. I think the author's brain is what's wrinkly and scratchy.


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

+1 to oldsarge... it's always been non-iron for me & i have never had an issue... maybe it has something to do with quality? nicer non-iron shirts are better than cheaper non-iron shirts?!?


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

andrel42 said:


> Strange ... I have been wearing Brooks Brothers non-iron shirts for years and have never experienced any of these symptoms and I do iron them of course simply they stay (nearly) wrinkle free all day!


Same with my LLBean NIOCBDs (don't iron them though, am retired). And if anyone would notice a problem, with my skin quirks I would.


----------



## Buffalo (Nov 19, 2003)

I own several BBs non-irons and have never experienced what the OP describes. By the way, BBs current non-irons have come a long way from the earlier stiffer version.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Oldsarge said:


> I think the author's brain is what's wrinkly and scratchy.


----------



## dcjacobson (Jun 25, 2007)

I prefer must-iron shirts, but I do have some no-irons as well. Of the no-iron shirts I've worn, BB are the best--by far. Great for travel. The Lands End no-iron shirts I've had have been stiff, heavy, and suffocating. I ended up getting rid of them.

Good luck,
Don


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

This guy sounds like a grouchy old bearcat. I have some no-irons and they aren't "stifling" at all. I iron all my shirts and couldn't tell you which ones were no-iron without looking at the tag.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Do the Brooks Brothers non-iron shirts "breath" better than Nordstrom and other non-iron shirts mentioned in the article?


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Both BB and JAB Travellers are stiff at first, but loosen up after a few trips through the washer. I've never noticed a smell particular to my no irons after washing, and don't find them scratchy in the least. The old ones were a lot stiffer and hell on a hot day, but that was a decade ago.


----------



## cmacey (May 3, 2009)

zzdocxx said:


> *The Shirt From Hell*
> 
> *The appalling rise of the smelly, sweaty, scratchy no-iron shirt.*
> 
> ...


Once upon a time, I too owned non-iron shirts; but now I find I prefer the good old "must iron" options. Call it an experiment, call it what you may...I have come to believe the "must iron" option feels better, is cooler, and just plain looks better, to me at least (and that, after all, is the most important thing), than any non-iron option I have ever owned. Now, if I want to wear a non-iron shirt, I grab a polo...


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I believe I own exactly one non-iron shirt. It is a cheapie from Costco. I bought it experimentally after they switched from the must-iron shirts made in Mauritius, which I thought were one of the best values in all the world of menswear, to the non-irons made in China, which cost a bit more, as well. I didn't like it at all initially, but after a number of commercial launderings and ironings it has softened up to the point where it isn't too bad for a $16 shirt, I suppose. It's still not as nice as the Mauritius-made Costco shirts of yore, and I don't plan to buy any more non-iron shirts, neither from Costco nor elsewhere.

Besides, I always thought non-iron shirts were a heinous breach of the iGent code!


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

:biggrin: Well, see? Now you know why my sig block reads "half slob". I'm quite willing to look good but not willing to work very hard at it. Ironing is something that happens to other people.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Some of us who have wives have wives that believe foo-king, cook-ing, and iron-ing are cities in China. At 5 AM a nice non-iron that still looks good at 7PM is a godsend. Present company excluded, of course.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

This is silly. I wear BB and Land's End no-iron shirts every day and they are fine. I live in Scottsdale, so I know hot and I see no difference between my nice neat no-iron shirts and when I rarely wear my must iron shirts. Maybe it is different in high humidity areas, but I doubt it. I wear a t-shirt underneath my shirts without fail (the must iron kind, lol), maybe that is why I don't notice how much my shirts "suck." 

This all looks like some kind of lame attempt at elitism - "I don't buy shirts at middle class department stores -- 'sniff'." I don't use a rotary phone or candles to light my home either.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

+1! And I don't turn a crank to start my car in the morning, either.


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

If the OP has such an issue with non iron shirts, then why not just wear "normal" shirts and iron them?
Personally I prefer the look of a nicely ironed cotton shirt, even though it takes me 3 times longer to iron them than my good lady.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

zzdocxx is absolutely correct. I am somewhat perplexed that members of a clothing forum would disagree (and rather rudely in some cases).

I possess just two 'non iron' shirts and these merely because they were a well intentioned gift. They require ironing, of course, and are inferior to 'must iron' two ply cotton shirts in every single respect (hand, drape, lustre, comfort etc). That they require ironing relegates their entire raison d'etre to the realms of sinister farce.

Upthewazzu, forgive me for singling you out, but I am agog at your statement that you are unable to discern the difference between the two! I can *hear* the difference between the two.

Ironing is not a slave function for your partner to perform. Ironing is a deeply manly skill. Ironing shirts promotes an intimacy with the garment. Consider it in the same way that you (presumably? surely!) lavish care upon your shoes.

We love our apparel and the expression of this passion should not only be in the wearing but also in the caring. Nothing flatters a man more than quality clothes, worn well, well worn-in, and well cared for.

I am unaware of any high end shirt manufacturer who offers non iron bespoke shirts. Why is this? It's because;

*Non iron shirts suck.*


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

^ I'd like to agree with Shaver, but I've never worn a non-iron shirt, so I really couldn't say!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I like the rumpled look. Send 'em all to the laundry, let 'em wrinkle as the day goes on. In colder weather, I get two day's wear out of many of them.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Funny stuff here.

The OP goes on a rant insulting those who like the convenience and look of non iron shirts. The non iron shirt fans respond. Then Shaver shows up, acting indignant and questioning why people have replied with such "rude" comments. 

Did you miss the OP's post there Shaver?


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

The Rambler said:


> I like the rumpled look. Send 'em all to the laundry, let 'em wrinkle as the day goes on. In colder weather, I get two day's wear out of many of them.


The people with whom I do business and to whom I market my consulting services are not so refined and sophisticated that they appreciate the Trad antecedents of the rumpled look. They think it is unkempt and sloppy.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> Funny stuff here.
> 
> The OP goes on a rant insulting those who like the convenience and look of non iron shirts. The non iron shirt fans respond. Then Shaver shows up, acting indignant and questioning why people have replied with such "rude" comments.
> 
> Did you miss the OP's post there Shaver?


Mr Kleen, I offer my assurances that I did not miss the OP's post. However I am forced to believe, in generosity, that perhaps some of your own post may be missing, making such little sense as it does. I presume that you have, as I often do myself, merely skimmed the thread. Please take a moment to digest it fully before you post further. At which stage I will be more than happy to 'show up' again and respond to any comment you make.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Mr Kleen, I offer my assurances that I did not miss the OP's post. However I am forced to believe, in generosity, that perhaps some of your own post may be missing, making such little sense as it does. I presume that you have, as I often do myself, merely skimmed the thread. Please take a moment to digest it fully before you post further. At which stage I will be more than happy to 'show up' again and respond to any comment you make.


When I need advice on how to respond to internet forum postings, I will be sure to advise you....as you clearly have all the answers.

Bottom line. Some people like to look crisp from morning to night and find no issue with non iron shirts Others dont like them. Period. Full Stop.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> When I need advice on how to respond to internet forum postings, I will be sure to advise you....as you clearly have all the answers.
> 
> Bottom line. Some people like to look crisp from morning to night and find no issue with non iron shirts Others dont like them. Period. Full Stop.


Goodness, you are a rather irate chap. Tough day, I presume. Well we've all had at least one of those, so I sympathise.

I do not have all the answers. I am a member of this forum because I enjoy the assistance, the help, of many of my fellow members. I also enjoy the occasionally incoherent diatribes. You may decide in which manner I am able to enjoy your latest posts.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Goodness, you are a rather irate chap. Tough day, I presume. Well we've all had at least one of those, so I sympathise.
> 
> I do not have all the answers. I am a member of this forum because I enjoy the assistance, the help, of many of my fellow members. I also enjoy the occasionally incoherent diatribes. You may decide in which manner I am able to enjoy your latest posts.


You are funny Shaver.

Kind of dolt who insults you and then when you respond, asks why you are so upset.

No need to worry. Having a splendid day here in Boston. Sunny, off to the cape for the long weekend, packing lots of non iron shirts to wear on the Vineyard. Hopefully I wont stand out as being uncivilized. LOL


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Ironing is not a slave function for your partner to perform. Ironing is a deeply manly skill. Ironing shirts promotes an intimacy with the garment.[/B]


I guess it's all really a matter of perspective. On my list of "deeply manly skills", I can't honestly say ironing would break the top twenty. Building a log cabin with no power tools, wrestling alligators, ice fishing by hand, etc., would probably qualify more to ME as deeply manly skills.

And when I'm interested in promoting intimacy, I can assure you it doesn't include my Rowenta!


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Non-iron shirts, don't like them. When to a BB store once and asked for must-iron, which they had to look for in the back. Since the staff looked puzzle I simply said, I like wrinkles. They looked even more puzzled. (Obviously this was at a mall, not on Mad Av.) That said, I found myself with a job that required evening dress-up for a week or so away from home. Fortunately, there was a great deal on the Trad Exchange for 4 white, plain collar, BB non-iron shirts in my size. I guess I'm not trad-hip enough to wear a wrinkled shirt to a classical concert, though a very trad gent I saw at one of them was wearing just that and I liked how he looked. I'm rethinking.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Much too much generalization here! I own both must-iron and non-iron shirts, and throughout the years both have been of varying quality. Some of my non-irons were terrible in "feel" and breathability (since given to charity) while many have been quite good.

I prefer must-irons, and my wife prefers that I take them to the cleaners for laundering and pressing! My non-irons have their place, too - when traveling, when I won't be wearing a jacket, for shorter periods of wear, etc. 

I don't see this as a discussion that should transmogrify into a battle between "purists" and "heretics."


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> You are funny Shaver.
> 
> Kind of dolt who insults you and then when you respond, asks why you are so upset.
> 
> No need to worry. Having a splendid day here in Boston. Sunny, off to the cape for the long weekend, packing lots of non iron shirts to wear on the Vineyard. Hopefully I wont stand out as being uncivilized. LOL


Crikey! Did you just call me a 'dolt'? That's faintly unreasonable. Internet Tough Guy, eh? :eek2:

I have re-read my posts and am unable to fathom why you have chosen to state 'insults you and then when you respond, asks why you are so upset'. Am I to infer that you believe I may have insulted you?

As to why you imagine I may be worried, here I am still further perplexed. I do hope that you enjoy your weekend, and acquire good opportunity to relax a little.

If I may make one small request of you? This personal campaign, if you feel you must continue it, would be more properly addressed via PM rather than quibbling for all the members to see.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

DocD said:


> I guess it's all really a matter of perspective. On my list of "deeply manly skills", I can't honestly say ironing would break the top twenty. Building a log cabin with no power tools, wrestling alligators, ice fishing by hand, etc., would probably qualify more to ME as deeply manly skills.
> 
> And when I'm interested in promoting intimacy, I can assure you it doesn't include my Rowenta!


DocD, surely _any_ skill which allows a gent to be self-sufficient is manly? It need not neccesarily be a matter of degree. I do admit though that the most manly skills, from my perspective, are honesty, loyalty, reliability and equity*.

I can manage the ironing but the alligators will need to wrestle themselves. :icon_smile_wink:

* although equity is the first casualty of fashion forum, concededly!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

godan said:


> The people with whom I do business and to whom I market my consulting services are not so refined and sophisticated that they appreciate the Trad antecedents of the rumpled look. They think it is unkempt and sloppy.


Lol, no doubt some of my clients think the same thing, though, in the realm of the subtle signals we all send out, others are suspicious of someone too pressed out - at least, around these parts. Location matters.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

When all else fails,try being reasonable . . .

Okay, _my_ case against iron-only shirts runs as follows:

While there may be some feeling about the masculinity of ironing one's one shirts the problem is that even at their highest, commercial ironing boards are made for people shorter than I am. Bending over an ironing board is bad for my back. Therefore, the alternative would be a 'bespoke' ironing board (is there actually any such thing?), having the Mrs. do my ironing (fat chance of *that*!) or sending shirts to the laundry on a regular basis. Thus added to the expense of the 'fine' shirt is its upkeep, rather like paying a premium for the privilege of paying for a Mercedes. Some here might find that trivial but I maintain that money not spent in one place can be spent in more pleasant ones.

As to the aesthetics and comfort thereof, these are opinions and each of us is entitled to his own. None of us is entitled to impose them on someone else and reiterating the same point louder and longer is not good debate technique. Neither is name-calling, so I am PM-ing Alex to close this thread for the good of the discourse.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

You gentlemen are aware that zzdocxx's op is a quotation of the first paragraphs of the _Slate_ article he links, which tries to achieve a tone of humorous overstatement, not a personal insult? The main point, other than that he doesn't like them, is that they have become so popular because everyone is looking to save money (on laundry bills) in this economic environment.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Oldsarge said:


> None of us is entitled to impose them on someone else and reiterating the same point louder and longer is not good debate technique.


Presumably, though, making passionate exposition (with a dash of good natured humour) is acceptable?

May I ask where a point was merely made 'louder and longer'. I am beginning to wonder if I have access to the same thread as everyone else! 

I hope I am not making a mistake by posting this. I have trebled checked the text for anything that could be possibly be interpreted as insulting but fear the worst......

Please oldsarge can I implore you not to read the above in any other manner than the spirit it was written- that of genuine enquiry.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

The Rambler said:


> You gentlemen are aware that zzdocxx's op is a quotation of the first paragraphs of the _Slate_ article he links, which tries to achieve a tone of humorous overstatement, not a personal insult? The main point, other than that he doesn't like them, is that they have become so popular because everyone is looking to save money (on laundry bills) in this economic environment.


Thank you Mr. Rambler.

:icon_hailthee:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rambler said:


> You gentlemen are aware that zzdocxx's op is a quotation of the first paragraphs of the _Slate_ article he links, which tries to achieve a tone of humorous overstatement, not a personal insult? The main point, other than that he doesn't like them, is that they have become so popular because everyone is looking to save money (on laundry bills) in this economic environment.


+1. The writer of the article clearly had his tongue firmly in his cheek. I have to say that anyone who would take offence at that has rather thin skin. I think most posters were enjoying the debate in the spirit intended. Although I don't agree, I particularly liked Oldsarge's line about "ironing being something that happens to other people".


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

WTF? Everyone is sentenced to the Manners Forum for 24 hours. If I see that all of you have visited there and offered penance I may reopen this.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

OK. 24 hours are up and I assume everyone has polished their etiquette. 

Shall we try again? Gentlemen: Start your keyboards.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> OK. 24 hours are up and I assume everyone has polished their etiquette.
> 
> Shall we try again? Gentlemen: Start your keyboards.


Actually Mr Kabbaz, having just recently read your enjoyably informative Discourse On Shirtings (prior to these recent events of this thread and assuredly not as a peurile attempt to ingratiate myself to you) might I ask you to express your opinion vis a vis non-iron shirts?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Shaver said:


> Actually Mr Kabbaz, having just recently read your enjoyably informative Discourse On Shirtings (prior to these recent events of this thread and assuredly not as a peurile attempt to ingratiate myself to you) might I ask you to express your opinion vis a vis non-iron shirts?


Certainly. I should be happy to:

Possibly the worst assault which has ever been perpetrated upon nature's most popular fibre. In short: Ugh.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Shaver said:


> Actually Mr Kabbaz, having just recently read your enjoyably informative Discourse On Shirtings (prior to these recent events of this thread and assuredly not as a peurile attempt to ingratiate myself to you) might I ask you to express your opinion vis a vis non-iron shirts?


Much more interesting interesting than my opinion on baked cotton would be if one of our wordsmiths would opine as to whether one "ingratiates to" or "ingratiates with".


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

I am far from an authority on this matter, but if we use the definition "to seek favor", then the typical adposition to follow would be "with". In Shaver's sentence, I propose a possible translation of "and assuredly not as a peurile attempt to apply seeking-favor-for-myself to you."


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I don't know. I used to teach writing, not grammar. Grammar is for linguists. Wordplay is for writers.


----------



## Big T (Jun 25, 2010)

Now I am very confused (and no one here should follow any sort of advice I give, unless you want to come across looking like a knuckle-dragging galoot). I have more than a few BB non-irons. I regularly have them laundered and pressed. Now what I have found is that the more they are laundered, the softer the cloth feels and they seem to hold the creases much longer than the "need ironed". Any opinions?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Much more interesting interesting than my opinion on baked cotton would be if one of our wordsmiths would opine as to whether one "ingratiates to" or "ingratiates with".


Mr Kabbaz, in this instance 'ingratiate' represents a reflexive verb (the subject and the object being one) and therefore I am currently convinced that the correct preposition is 'to'.

I do not object to my, often somewhat florid, usage of the English language being occasionally in error, though. I am as capable of failure as the next man. Further if we were to commence criticism of the usage of the grammar within the threads of this board we would get little else done. You yourself repeated the word 'interesting' twice in succesion within your post, I presume that this was accidental and only draw attention to it now for illustrative purposes.

Might I enquire as to why you have chosen to, from the not inconsiderable variety of choice available elsewhere on this forum, pick on me? I am genuinely intrigued.

My sincere thanks to you for your respected weight of opinion as to the merits, or otherwise, of the non-iron shirt.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

The Rambler said:


> Lol, no doubt some of my clients think the same thing, though, in the realm of the subtle signals we all send out, others are suspicious of someone too pressed out - at least, around these parts. Location matters.


This is an insightful comment. I think location matters a great deal. My practice is around water issues in the arid West. For corporations in cities, a suit is the expected uniform. Other clients are irrigation companies whose boards are typically prosperous farm owners and businesspeople in counties with as few at 25K inhabitants. These groups expect someone charging my rates to appear clean, crisp and pressed. If asked, they would say it shows respect. You are right that it could be overdone, but an error in the direction of perceived sloppiness would be unacceptable.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Shaver said:


> Mr Kabbaz, in this instance 'ingratiate' represents a reflexive verb (the subject and the object being one) and therefore I am currently convinced that the correct preposition is 'to'.
> 
> I do not object to my, often somewhat florid, usage of the English language being occasionally in error, though. I am as capable of failure as the next man. Further if we were to commence criticism of the usage of the grammar within the threads of this board we would get little else done. You yourself repeated the word 'interesting' twice in succesion within your post, I presume that this was accidental and only draw attention to it now for illustrative purposes.
> 
> ...


Not picking. Simply an honest question as I could not remember the correct usage.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Not picking. Simply an honest question as I could not remember the correct usage.


hmmm.... well then if you say so, I shall in good faith choose to believe you.

A more disputative chap than myself may be able to develop a contrarian discourse generated by elaboration of your propulsation of the probe to the purview of your 'wordsmiths' rather than merely challenging the originator.

Still, my point on the wretched non-iron fabric made eloquently many posts ago, the reputable AK having articulated his concurrence, and all's well.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

I'll try to offer a nuanced opinion on non-irons. I own a few, I wear them, and will continue to do so.

Until they wear out. And then, with my most sincere apologies to Chief Joseph, I will buy no more non-irons forever.

Like so many, I succumbed to the easy-care allure, knowing full well that they just didn't look as nice. But hey...at least I wasn't wearing a golf shirt in the office like everyone around me, right?

But I can no longer get past the 'un-natural' look they impart to any outfit. I agree with The Rambler and others; a shirt should acquire character, evinced by wrinkles, as the day goes on. It is the natural order of things. Non-irons remind me of the perma-press I wouldn't wear in college -- things that look too perfect look artificial.

The bottom line for me came to this: A non-iron looks...fussy.

And a fine suit paired with a non-iron shirt is akin to the same fine suit with unpolished shoes. To my eye, it looks as though the wearer wants all the esteem of a well-dressed man, but with none of the effort.

All this said, I do think some situations can allow for non-irons. Emergency back-up shirts come first to mind, and for those who live on planes or otherwise out of a suitcase, I understand non-irons fill a role.

But count me out.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Shaver said:


> hmmm.... well then if you say so, I shall in good faith choose to believe you.


Thank you kindly, sir.



Shaver said:


> A more disputative chap than myself may be able to develop a contrarian discourse generated by elaboration of your propulsation of the probe to the purview of your 'wordsmiths' rather than merely challenging the originator.


Your choice of the "may" rather than the "might have" may lead one to postulate possible instigatory intent. Nonetheless, I shall assume the best and move forward.

There was a time - back in the day - when discussions of correct grammatic usage were frequent. 'tis for this reason that I called in vain for our wordsmiths and not to malign ability nor impugn purpose. Alas, most now seem more inclined to discuss how many times a dress shirt can be worn _sans_ laundering and, sadly, often with nary capital letter or properly placed punction within an entire post.

Not to run too far astray permit me a brief elaboration on my non-iron shirts declamation:

Until but a score and ten ago, the standard finishing process for cotton cloth included a formaldehyde bath. At some point it was realized that the process of osmosis was pre-embalming cotton wearers and the standards for cotton were upgraded, much to the dismay of the formaldehyde manufacturers.

There have been quite a number of methods invented over the years to cause cotton not to wrinkle. Although processes vary widely, they all have in common two factors: Chemicals and Heat. Four decades of personal experience - yes, I may be a slow learner - have inculcated in me great respect for the ability of heat to do damage to natural fibres. Thankfully, it did not require such a long learning curve to forego wearing chemicals for I leaned in my early 20's that I was allergic to polyester. Thus when it comes to chemical-infused cotton, I shall harangue all who care to listen with the following sermon: Ugh!


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

AK,

I'm sorry to learn that you discovered you had an allergy to polyester in your early 20's.

That would indicate that you were deprived the pleasure of wearing a 100 percent polyester leisure suit, (with contrast stitching) during your prime predatory years,


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

DocD said:


> AK,
> 
> I'm sorry to learn that you discovered you had an allergy to polyester in your early 20's.
> 
> That would indicate that you were deprived the pleasure of wearing a 100 percent polyester leisure suit, (with contrast stitching) during your prime predatory years,


Thank you for your kind words. 'twas an awful cross to bear. Having immigrant parents, we were poor ... so I even had to learn to sew my own shirts.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*Faut souffrir pour être belle*

Stay-press shirts, of any description, will never have cachet.

Must-iron dress shirt, professionally laundered, heavy starch, and practicality be dammed.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Thank you kindly, sir.
> 
> Your choice of the "may" rather than the "might have" may lead one to postulate possible instigatory intent. Nonetheless, I shall assume the best and move forward.
> 
> ...


Hello Alexander,

I appreciate the authenticity of your observation and yearn, retrospectively, that I was wise enough to select the words 'might have'.

I am always acutely trepidacious of any tendency to correct others' verbiage or punctuation as I do not expect my fellows to necessarily possess the inclination, or perhaps even the ability, to compete. I shall now desist from furthering this avenue of dialogue.

I admire the opinion of the cultivated and very much respect your experience. To argue with you about shirts would be a vainglorious pursuit ineed! I confess that, in posing my inquiry, I did not expect you to assert any other opinion but your succinctly expressed Ugh!

As I stated in my original post I (believe that I) can *hear* the difference between the two fabrics, when tugged. The sound of non iron to me is a crackling rustle, the sound of two ply a roll like distant thunder. Although this may be resultant of my possibly too intimate relationship with the apparel which I own. :redface:

Could I draw you on this subject, am I imagining this auditory effect?


----------



## arnaudr (Oct 30, 2011)

"I know it contains those stuff, but I still prefer iron-free shirts"

I hear words like these every day.

"We do not carry wrinkle free but some of our shirts are easy to iron" would you like to check those out?

"Nah, I'm too lazy to iron"

I thus embarked on a journey to learn to treat ready shirts into the steam boilers to "cure" them into the formaldehyde producing resin (DMDHEU) baths. These boil at 490 Degrees F.

Its a process better not seen. I love the shirts I produce. I love each yard of fabric so much that I hate throwing even the pieces remaining after cutting for the shirt. Converting that hand chosen piece of fabric to wrinkle-free is something I have not been able to come to terms with.

The workers need to wear gas masks while the process is on. Even after that, they cannot work in the industry for too long. Develop health complications. But the juggernaut rolls on. Rolls on the greed of many of us.

To the buyer:
Each strand of cotton gets coated with the resin. It is not cotton any more. Dip a strand of cotton thread in adhesive and let it dry. That is what you end up with. Rather go for the LA(Liquid Ammonia) finishes. Though expensive, they are done at comparatively lower temperatures, easy chemicals and are skin friendly. You can wear those out of the dryer and will be perfect after light ironing.

On warm days, the wrinkling cotton, the true gift of mother nature, would give much more comfort than the non-wrinkling ones.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Thank you for your kind words. 'twas an awful cross to bear. Having immigrant parents, we were poor ... so I even had to learn to sew my own shirts.


Yes, but look at the amazing skills you developed as the result of necessity. Some would have "moved on" once they were financially stable and would not have had the drive and determination you did, which ultimately resulted in your present success and stellar reputation.

Kudos.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

If you like wrinkles, or you enjoy ironing, I guess there is no point in arguing which type of shirt is best - you should buy must iron, obviously.

If you don't like wrinkles, or you don't enjoy ironing, then it becomes a debatable question. I believe that many of the more sophisticated members here are comparing high quality must iron to low quality non-iron. 

To make this a fair comparison, I suggest you purchase both an iron and non-iron pinpoint oxford from the same manufacturer, say Lands' End, and launder them the same way a dozen times or so. I would wager that you will be hard pressed (pun intended) to tell them apart - except for how they look when they come out of the dryer (or off the line). If you don't want to go through the expense, perhaps a friend has a few well laundered non-iron shirts from LE or BB you could feel and compare to similar quality must iron?

Seriously, have you tried this? I have both from Land's End and the only difference I can feel is that the non-iron maybe feels a bit silkier, or maybe like it has a very fine tooth. Very little difference if any that I or my wife can feel. In a blind test, I suspect that even most afficiandos here would not be able to reliably distinguish them. Put some starch into the must iron, and the non-iron will be softer and more breathable, for sure. And look better at the end of the day.


----------



## Big T (Jun 25, 2010)

J.Marko said:


> the only difference I can feel is that the non-iron maybe feels a bit silkier, or maybe like it has a very fine tooth.


I posted something similar about the BB non-irons I have, that after a number laundering & pressing, they actually have a very soft feel, plus they still hold the creases very well (much, much better than the "ironing needed" shirts). In thinking about the shirts I have, non of the non-iron shirts are worn with suits or sport coats w/tie (my subconscious speaking to me???).


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

J.Marko said:


> ... and the non-iron will be softer and more breathable, for sure. And look better at the end of the day.


Ah, but that is where we disagree...I think the non-irons look even worse at the end of the day!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Shaver said:


> ... this may be resultant of my possibly too intimate relationship with the apparel which I own.


I do believe that this is where I bow out ... lest more details be revealed.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

arnaudr said:


> I thus embarked on a journey to learn to treat ready shirts into the steam boilers to "cure" them into the formaldehyde producing resin (DMDHEU) baths. These boil at 490 Degrees F.
> 
> Its a process better not seen. I love the shirts I produce. I love each yard of fabric so much that I hate throwing even the pieces remaining after cutting for the shirt. Converting that hand chosen piece of fabric to wrinkle-free is something I have not been able to come to terms with.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I have long resisted learning even that much about the current state of assault on nature's bounty. 
--- --- ---​
A note to the wise: Cottons certified made under Oko-tex Standard 1000 cannot use formaldehyde in any part of the production process. Look for the certification.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Big T said:


> I posted something similar about the BB non-irons I have, that after a number laundering & pressing, they actually have a very soft feel, plus they still hold the creases very well (much, much better than the "ironing needed" shirts). In thinking about the shirts I have, non of the non-iron shirts are worn with suits or sport coats w/tie (my subconscious speaking to me???).


Of course, the most traditional amongst us would avoid creases in shirts altogether. Hence the special contraption for ironing boards that is used to iron sleeves without creating a crease. Much too much effort, I'm afraid, for me. But I've not heard of a crease being seen as a desirable thing to maintain in a shirt, as opposed to a trouser.


----------



## Big T (Jun 25, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Of course, the most traditional amongst us would avoid creases in shirts altogether. Hence the special contraption for ironing boards that is used to iron sleeves without creating a crease. Much too much effort, I'm afraid, for me. But I've not heard of a crease being seen as a desirable thing to maintain in a shirt, as opposed to a trouser.


I'm here to learn and appreciate you pointing this out. Is this for also when you're not wearing a jacket?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Balfour said:


> Of course, the most traditional amongst us would avoid creases in shirts altogether. Hence the special contraption for ironing boards that is used to iron sleeves without creating a crease. Much too much effort, I'm afraid, for me. But I've not heard of a crease being seen as a desirable thing to maintain in a shirt, as opposed to a trouser.


Shirt sleeves should be creased from where they meet the yoke down to the cuff as well on the lower side where the seam is. Moreover, additional sleeve pleats at the cuff should be creased.

The sleeve board is not a necessary tool to press a sleeve _sans_ crease. It has many functions of which that is not one.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Am I to take from this that Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons will not be offereing a selection of easy-care/non-iron fabrics in 2012? And, to understand that the sock girls are also unavailable? 
Damn. Of course both would probably be high maintenance...


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

cdavant said:


> Am I to take from this that Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons will not be offereing a selection of easy-care/non-iron fabrics in 2012? And, to understand that the sock girls are also unavailable?
> Damn. Of course both would probably be high maintenance...


Shirts are cheap to maintain. A bit o' soap and a few minutes with an iron.

Sock girls, on the other hand, can be costly. Here's one of them absconding with $538 worth of cashmere & silk thigh-highs and about a grand worth of Zimmerli. :icon_headagainstwal

​


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I do believe that this is where I bow out ... lest more details be revealed.


Does everyone else on this forum actually believe that 'intimate' is a reference to the sexual? 

The word is only very occasionally associated with the sexual act and then merely as a vaguely smutty euphimism.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Shirt sleeves should be creased from where they meet the yoke down to the cuff as well on the lower side where the seam is. Moreover, additional sleeve pleats at the cuff should be creased.
> 
> The sleeve board is not a necessary tool to press a sleeve _sans_ crease. It has many functions of which that is not one.


Many gentlemen (in England, at least) express a preference for shirt sleeves without creases. I do not count myself amongst them but am aware of their existence. The sleeve board is the tool (along with an iron, obviously) that they employ to achieve this effect.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

_"every Shaver post ever written"

_Do people actually speak that way....out loud? As I read through this entire thread, I had to chuckle at the irony of Shaver being surprised -- on multiple occasions -- about other posters misunderstanding or misinterpreting his posts. Just a friendly suggestion....a healthy dose of plainspokenness (dumb it down) in your posts might help solve that problem. I've always thought that if something's important at all, it deserves to be expressed clearly and plainly, so that anyone can understand it (including us common folk). What's with all the linguistic gymnastics and deliberately difficult prose?


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Does everyone else on this forum actually believe that 'intimate' is a reference to the sexual?
> 
> The word is only very occasionally associated with the sexual act and then merely as a vaguely smutty euphimism.


Yep, it's creepy...especially since you've used the term more than once and have also referred to some sort of shoe fetish.

And as the previous poster noted, clearer language may benefit you.


----------



## ManInOTC (Jun 17, 2012)

In my own personal opinion, the word *intimate* is neither "creepy" nor exclusively associated with the sexual. Intimate can be used to describe anything from a quiet, romantic dinner by the sea to a lovingly decorated home. Only the jaded and cynical would be so quick to dismiss the word, which is all too realistic in this jaded and cynical world we live in.

As for shoe fetishes, what is wrong with that? We all have a fetish, and it can be anything from inanimate objects to people. However, I have a hunch that around these parts if the fetish pertains to the female sex, then it's perfectly acceptable and encouraged (as evidenced by the Zimberli ad copy-and-paste).


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

FLCracka said:


> _"every Shaver post ever written"..._


The aforequoted post caused me to cachinnate in an audible fashion. (I LOL'd).


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

FLCracka said:


> _"every Shaver post ever written"
> 
> _Do people actually speak that way....out loud? As I read through this entire thread, I had to chuckle at the irony of Shaver being surprised -- on multiple occasions -- about other posters misunderstanding or misinterpreting his posts. Just a friendly suggestion....a healthy dose of plainspokenness (dumb it down) in your posts might help solve that problem. I've always thought that if something's important at all, it deserves to be expressed clearly and plainly, so that anyone can understand it (including us common folk). What's with all the linguistic gymnastics and deliberately difficult prose?


:icon_hailthee:


----------



## Big T (Jun 25, 2010)

I could use a double dose of "dumbing it down" to my level of understanding, though many of you would probably refer me to the undergraduate (or maybe the pre-school) Ask Andy forum!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

This is all becoming a bit personal and uncalled for: I suggest we return to the issue, rather than descend into personal attacks on a particular member.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Balfour said:


> This is all becoming a bit personal and uncalled for: I suggest we return to the issue, rather than descend into personal attacks on a particular member.


Having a bad day are we chap?

I know we have all had a few of those.


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

Fetishism is a broad category, of which sexual fetishism is only one aspect. In knowing the full meaning of the word, you better understand Shaver's intent. I personally do not find anything creepy about what he said. From my perspective, shoes have a mystical draw for him in the same way one might be pulled to the sun shining through the mist of a waterfall. We all find our magical experiences in different places.

One thing I've learned in my short time here is that definitions matter. It's something I actually appreciate a great deal about this message board. Do I normally speak in the same way as I post here? No, but that is one reason why I appreciate it so much.

In the past, I did not know how balmorals and bluchers ranked in formality. I could distinguish between dress shoe and sneaker, but much of the subtlety in the dress shoe range was lost on me. Now that I understand that language better, I better understand what the person is saying with their presentation.

The same applies to what is written here. I may choose to simply see "plain" and "fancy", but if I want to better understand something that I perceive as obtuse, research pays dividends. What used to simply be "fancy" now becomes rich with meaning.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> Having a bad day are we chap?
> 
> I know we have all had a few of those.


Not at all.

You seem to have an uncanny ability to take offence, though: Much in the way of someone who crosses the street to walk into someone's path and then accuse him of getting in your way. So I will not be entering into an exchange with you beyond this reply.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Back to the point in hand, I am quite happy to concede to the superior knowledge of Mr. Kabbaz on creases! 

While there is a school of thought at least in England that creases should be avoided, perhaps the higher principle is a gentleman should not remove his jacket in any event, so the matter of whether his shirt has creases or not is his own private(*) business?

(*) But not intimate.:devil:


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Mox said:


> The same applies to what is written here. I may choose to simply see "plain" and "fancy", but if I want to better understand something that I perceive as obtuse, research pays dividends. What used to simply be "fancy" now becomes rich with meaning.


I think I understand and sort of agree with your point. However, there's "plain", there's "fancy", and then there's gibberish...

"......A more disputative chap than myself may be able to develop a contrarian discourse generated by elaboration of your propulsation of the probe to the purview of your 'wordsmiths' rather than merely challenging the originator......."


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Where's the sense of humor? Shaver's stilted diction is surely meant to entertain. Throw in the odd malapropism or other solecism and you have that wonderful comic creation the Kingfish.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Thanks for that, Rambler. You've helped to formulate in my mind a vision of the character that is Shaver, that I can actually come to terms with. I'm not familiar with the Kingfish, but a "comic creation" of the sort you described is the perfect lens through which to make sense of the "gibberish".


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> I think I understand and sort of agree with your point. However, there's "plain", there's "fancy", and then there's gibberish...


I think I understand what you mean as well. To expand a bit, I find text-speak to be gibberish on the surface. I can decipher it if I wish, but due to the way my brain deals with whole words as symbols more readily than auditory sounds, and my poor eyesight, it takes a lot of work.

If someone wishes to send me a message, they need to keep that in mind, or the message is likely to be lost. If I step into a chat room where text-speak is, if not the norm, at least an accepted form, then I think it's up to me to put the work in.

I cannot speak for anyone, but I don't imagine most here wish to exclude anyone. There's a middle ground, of course, however I would find something missing if anyone's posts were to be reduced to "Me Mox, wear sportcoat."


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

This has been one of the most bizarre and bad-tempered threads I have read in some time. I can only assume that the "embalming fluid" from the non-iron shirting is seeping deep into the brains of the unsuspected wearers and producing some kind of neural dysfunction predisposing to rage... 

...the curse of the non-iront shirt continues!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Shaver doubleplus duckspeak crimethink. Oldspeak bellyfeel ungood.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Shaver said:


> Does everyone else on this forum actually believe that 'intimate' is a reference to the sexual?


Not at all. However, when one knowingly and playfully (_*Please be aware that levity may be the accent of my posts.) *_opens oneself up to the double _entendre_ a tongue-in-cheek reaction should not be surprising.



Shaver said:


> The word is only very occasionally associated with the sexual act and then merely as a vaguely smutty euphimism.


Here I vehemently disagree. I should strongly dispute "very occasionally associated" and utterly reject "a vaguely smutty euphemism".



Shaver said:


> Many gentlemen (in England, at least) express a preference for shirt sleeves without creases. I do not count myself amongst them but am aware of their existence. The sleeve board is the tool (along with an iron, obviously) that they employ to achieve this effect.


I was not disputing the inelegant preference for uncreased sleeves. I harbor disdain for the necessity of a sleeve board to accomplish that end. The proper manner to press an uncreased sleeve is to rotate it on the flat board whilst ironing.



ManInOTC said:


> In my own personal opinion, the word *intimate* is neither "creepy" nor exclusively associated with the sexual.


We agree. My disagreement with Shaver lies in his spurious claims of "occasional" and "smutty".



FLCracka said:


> _"every Shaver post ever written"
> 
> _Do people actually speak that way....out loud?


Yes.



FLCracka said:


> Just a friendly suggestion....a healthy dose of plainspokenness (dumb it down) in your posts might help solve that problem. I've always thought that if something's important at all, it deserves to be expressed clearly and plainly, so that anyone can understand it (including us common folk). What's with all the linguistic gymnastics and deliberately difficult prose?


You might be interested in the Sowell book, _The Dumbing Down of America_.



smmrfld said:


> Yep, it's creepy...especially since you've used the term more than once and have also referred to some sort of shoe fetish.
> 
> And as the previous poster noted, clearer language may benefit you.


Expending the effort to read what you find unclear may benefit you. It certainly won't benefit Shaver to write with less talent than he has heretofore exhibited.



mrkleen said:


> Having a bad day are we chap?


 No, he was not. He was simply stating the obvious.



Mox said:


> Fetishism is a broad category, of which sexual fetishism is only one aspect. In knowing the full meaning of the word, you better understand Shaver's intent. I personally do not find anything creepy about what he said. From my perspective, shoes have a mystical draw for him in the same way one might be pulled to the sun shining through the mist of a waterfall. We all find our magical experiences in different places.


Well said.



Mox said:


> One thing I've learned in my short time here is that definitions matter. It's something I actually appreciate a great deal about this message board. Do I normally speak in the same way as I post here? No, but that is one reason why I appreciate it so much.


 Hear, hear!



Mox said:


> The same applies to what is written here. I may choose to simply see "plain" and "fancy", but if I want to better understand something that I perceive as obtuse, research pays dividends. What used to simply be "fancy" now becomes rich with meaning.


The exact point I was struggling to make when I first derailed this fiftieth boring rendition of *The Non-iron Controversy*. I found Shaver's use of a certain preposition intriguing and asked for further elucidation. Thankfully (IMHO) this has resulted in at least a few moments of levity interspersed between the abject ennui of "my _non-iron_ is softer than your _must iron_".



The Rambler said:


> Where's the sense of humor?


Thank God! Sanity at last. The view from a long-time member speaks volumes.



Mox said:


> One thing I've learned in my short time here is that definitions matter.


 Pardon my temerity in double-quoting you. I would nominate your statement for the hall of fame. Definitions matter (e.g.: _what the meaning of the word _*is*_ is_) supremely. For those who consider the dialogue to need a bit more "clarity", "plain language", or "dumbing down", remember this. You are audio and you are video. No matter how perfect your attire. No matter that it speaks before you've had the opportunity to utter even a solitary syllable. At some point you are going to have to open your mouth and your audio track - the dumbed down clarity of plain language - may just make a complete mockery of the wonderful first impression of your visual appearance.

Or as we say to our children when they ask the meaning of a word: *Look it up.*


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

Wowzers - this has gotten out of hand, and thereby ended up exactly where it needs to be!


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I've got several non-irons. They have their place. I prefer regular though.

Intimately,

PS


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

Patrick06790 said:


> I prefer regular...Intimately, PS


YES!!!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Patrick06790 said:


> I've got several non-irons. They have their place. I prefer regular though.
> 
> Intimately,
> 
> PS


Very well done, Patrick!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> Yep, it's creepy...especially since you've used the term more than once and have also referred to some sort of shoe fetish.


Hello smmrfld,

apropos your declared sensitivity to the notion that footwear may contain magical potency might I take the liberty of recommending that you never, ever consider viewing THIS thread;

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?66901-What-Footwear-Are-You-Wearing-Today/


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> :icon_hailthee:


Salutations Mr Kleen, might I implore you to forgive me this my appalling weakness? ah, mea culpa! You will, I trust, appreciate that as this juncture discovers me I find myself temporarily enervated of nobility. Thus in this lamentable estate I shall ponder aloud and moreover in clemency to the faculty of you, my confederate and my obsequious recipient, shall utilise the diminished and degraded vocabulary beseeched - thus;

"is _that_ the best you've got?"


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> _"every Shaver post ever written".........
> 
> _What's with all the linguistic gymnastics and deliberately difficult prose?


The loquacious athleticism is merely the largesse of artifice, you may elect to discard at your preference.



FLCracka said:


> However, there's "plain", there's "fancy", and then there's gibberish...
> 
> "......A more disputative chap than myself may be able to develop a contrarian discourse generated by elaboration of your propulsation of the probe to the purview of your 'wordsmiths' rather than merely challenging the originator......."


Gibberish? Gibberish! This is a *very* straightforward sentence. No convolutions, digressions, abstractions nor obfuscations; merely consistent, coherent and expressed in standard linear structure, the clarity of subject, verb, object being exercised in the traditional manner.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Shaver said:


> The loquacious athleticism is merely the largesse of artifice*, y*ou may elect to discard at your preference.


Ah*-ha*! My dear Shaver ... I do believe that, in the vernacular, I gotcha!

You have erred in your choice of punctuation, to wit: The highlighted need be your choice among nothing, semicolon, or period/space/capital Y. Would you care to try in vain to justify your error or would you rather capitulate?



Shaver said:


> Gibberish? Gibberish! This is a *very* straightforward sentence. No convolutions, digressions, abstractions nor obfuscations; merely consistent, coherent and expressed in standard linear structure, the clarity of subject, verb, object being exercised in the traditional manner.


Straightforward? Agreed.

Loquacious? Most heartily agreed.

Gibberish? Uhhh ... Nope.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Originally Posted by *Shaver* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1309123#post1309123 "The loquacious athleticism is merely the largesse of artifice*, y*ou may elect to discard at your preference"
> 
> Ah*-ha*! My dear Shaver ... I do believe that, in the vernacular, I gotcha!
> 
> You have erred in your choice of punctuation, to wit: The highlighted need be your choice among nothing, semicolon, or period/space/capital Y. Would you care to try in vain to justify your error or would you rather capitulate?


Not at all, my dear fellow. I have employed the comma in one of it's simplest aspects, to wit, that of dividing a sentence by marking a pause. As neither clause, nor list, appear then the semi colon would seem to be excessive. A full stop _could_ perhaps have been utilised but it was not my choice to present the statement in that manner, degrading to the construction as it would have been.

PS if, however, a triumph against my extravagant language were to be achieved then it could be easily sourced by exploiting my occlusion in respect of* it's *and *its*, examples of which being littered amongst my posts. 
I am indebted to Balfour for PM'ing me (fine fellow that he is, not 'outing' my shame publicly) to appraise me of this already known to me but continually neglected assuetude.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Shaver said:


> Not at all, my dear fellow. I have employed the comma in one of it's simplest aspects, to wit, that of dividing a sentence by marking a pause. As neither clause, nor list, appear then the semi colon would seem to be excessive. A full stop _could_ perhaps have been utilised but it was not my choice to present the statement in that manner, degrading to the construction as it would have been.
> 
> PS if, however, a triumph against my extravagant language were to be achieved then it could be easily sourced by exploiting my occlusion in respect of* it's *and *its*, examples of which being littered amongst my posts.
> I am indebted to Balfour for PM'ing me (fine fellow that he is, not 'outing' my shame publicly) to appraise me of this already known to me but continually neglected assuetude.


Valiant attempt, kind sir. It does not stand for you have omitted the coordinating conjunction.

_*"Use the semicolon between two main clauses not joined by a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for). Use the semicolon only between parts of equal rank."*_****

Had you written ... largesse of artifice*, **and** y*ou may elect ... you would be correct.

In your defense, "The loquacious athleticism is merely the largesse of artifice", you endeavor to justify mildly interesting bloviation ... and do so quite well.

Your offense which follows, "you may elect to discard at your preference", merely serves to tell your disparaging opponent to stick it where the Sun don't shine.

Thus, though you may simplistically consider your comma to be correct in the simplest formation, you are simply wrong. Your thoughts are disparate and not saved by being properly conjoined.

** _Harbrace College Handbook_, James C. Hodges with Mary Whitman; Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1941 revised 1967, pp. 132 ff.

---​
As for it's and its: My Welch grandfather sneered disdainfully at those who insisted upon contracting "it is". We were not permitted to do so.

Thankfully, since his passing shortly after my 18th birthday, I have been free to screw it up as royally as do you.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Hello smmrfld,
> 
> apropos your declared sensitivity to the notion that footwear may contain magical potency might I take the liberty of recommending that you never, ever consider viewing THIS thread;
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?66901-What-Footwear-Are-You-Wearing-Today/


Thanks for the helpful tip. I'll be sure to follow your expert guidance.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> Thanks for the helpful tip. I'll be sure to follow your expert guidance.


Oh come come, old sport. There is really no need to take that attitude. Do you not recognise a good natured ribbing when you read one?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Valiant attempt, kind sir. It does not stand for you have omitted the coordinating conjunction.
> 
> _*"Use the semicolon between two main clauses not joined by a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for). Use the semicolon only between parts of equal rank."*_****
> 
> ...


 Hello Alexander, are we exposing the members to a dearth of stimulation promulgating as we are lassitudinous grammatical exactitude?

May I inform in this interregnum, this temporary cessation, you have engendered my inspection of the dictionary? Kudos to you, Sir. Bloviation, indeed! I shall not disremember that word. 

To commence: you neglected to include 'yet' and 'so' in your listing of coordinating conjunctors. No great deficiency, I merely mention it en passant.

To business: I remain firm in my resolve as to my defence and that the comma was employed as a mere divisor. 

I am able to further expound upon this correctitude as shall follow. I am aware that when a coordinating conjunction joins independent clauses, those containing a subject and a predicate (though this constituent is disputed by competing schools of grammar), it is always correct to place a comma before the conjunction (unless, of course, the second independent clause is somewhat diminutive). 

However, even when lacking a coordinating conjunction, commas are often used to enclose parenthical words and phrases within a sentence. In my case a resumptive modifier.

I am potentially misunderstanding your post but I *was* intending to inform my opponent to 'stick it' if this clarifies?

Back to you shirtmeister with the following reciprocal critique "Your thoughts are disparate and not saved by being properly conjoined". I am certain that you did not mean to structure the sentence quite this way. Meaning, as it does, that the proper conjunction was applied but that it failed to save my disparate thoughts.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm glad "bloviating" has entered this discourse. It is most decidedly the mot juste. The Rambler's reference to the Kingfish immediately made me think of Warren G Harding.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Shaver doubleplus duckspeak crimethink. Oldspeak bellyfeel ungood.


I'm rather depressed that no one has commented upon my response, reproduced above. In my not so very humble opinion it is the ideal model of a masterful and erudite rejoinder.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

The Orwellian references may have passed over some heads ... It would be unkind to name names.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

It is the curse of the artist intellectual to be not understood in his own time...


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Haffman said:


> It is the curse of the artist intellectual to be not understood in his own time...


:icon_cheers:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> It is the curse of the artist intellectual to be not understood in his own time...


c.f Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Shaver said:


> I'm rather depressed that no one has commented upon my response, reproduced above. In my not so very humble opinion it is the ideal model of a masterful and erudite rejoinder.


Seeking kudos are we? It was a masterful and erudite rejoinder which laid waste to that which demanded it. Thus no comment was necessary. I hope you feel better now. :devil:



Shaver said:


> To commence: you neglected to include 'yet' and 'so' in your listing of coordinating conjunctors. No great deficiency, I merely mention it en passant.


To do so would have been to embellish Mr. Hodges work. Unforgivable!



Shaver said:


> To business: I remain firm in my resolve as to my defence and that the comma was employed as a mere divisor.


As you wish.



Shaver said:


> I am potentially misunderstanding your post but I *was* intending to inform my opponent to 'stick it' if this clarifies?


Ahhhh.



Shaver said:


> Back to you shirtmeister with the following reciprocal critique "Your thoughts are disparate and not saved by being properly conjoined". I am certain that you did not mean to structure the sentence quite this way. Meaning, as it does, that the proper conjunction was applied but that it failed to save my disparate thoughts.


I stand corrected, something you might consider. Herewith properly rewritten with no attempt at creating an enjoyable flow:

"Your thoughts are disparate and your sentence is not saved by being properly punctuated with a semicolon".


----------



## Big T (Jun 25, 2010)

Some of this discourse/rambling/writing would put "Confederacy of Dunces" to shame!


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

^^^ 
Huey P. Long was known as the "Kingfish."


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

This thread has me on the verge of breaking out the old strunk and white.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Orsini said:


> ^^^
> Huey P. Long was known as the "Kingfish."


...+1



Taken Aback said:


> This thread has me on the verge of breaking out the old strunk and white.


Pardon me. Didn't you mean _Strunk and White_? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Taken Aback said:


> This thread has me on the verge of breaking out the old strunk and white.


...which would have been a mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style#Criticism



> The book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules . . . It's sad. Several generations of college students learned their grammar from the uninformed bossiness of Strunk and White, and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write however or than me or was or which, but can't tell you why.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Taken Aback said:


> ...the old strunk and white.


Is that some kind of booze?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Seeking kudos are we? It was a masterful and erudite rejoinder which laid waste to that which demanded it. Thus no comment was necessary. I hope you feel better now.




Actually I genuinely *do* feel considerably better and thank you for your gracious acknowledgement. I realise that it was a shameful self-indulgence to seek approbation. However we must, each of us, act according to our nature. Please forgive me my cerebral adynamy and via this courtesy be distracted from illuminating my pernicious flaw.





Alexander Kabbaz said:


> As you wish.


This is rather avoiding the thrust of my supplementary clause "However, even when lacking a coordinating conjunction, commas are often used to enclose parenthical words and phrases within a sentence. In my case a resumptive modifier" which I believe reinforces my position.




Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I stand corrected, something you might consider. Herewith properly rewritten with no attempt at creating an enjoyable flow:"Your thoughts are disparate and your sentence is not saved by being properly punctuated with a semicolon".



I am always prepared to stand corrected when circumstances dictate. I have done so publicly during exchanges, with for example cuffdaddy, and privately via PM's where the volte face was more appropriately delivered with sincerity than via public dissemination. I am not so bellicose as to refuse to amend my position in the light of additional information. Indeed this life is experienced within the coruscating flux of continual revision informed, as it must be, by the constant introduction and assimilation of data.

All this and still, the meaning of your sentence remains muddy. Allow me to spare you, and spare you the meandering rationale and interpolation of the dreaded gerund, the simple deletion of 'saved by being' will rectify this. 

In conclusion, as a matter of bald fact I have little respect for the constrictions of grammar beyond the rigour of pure understanding, to purpose. That the rules are disputed amongst the experts, where along the esoteric peripheries no genuine consensus of application exists, will allow us to count the angels dancing on the head of a pin until the Temple is rebuilt. However I do delight in the intellectual contortions of debate and the opportunity to revel in your process, my admired combatant.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Any Brits remember Leonard Sachs in 'The Good Old Days'

A man who swallowed Roget's Thesaurus introducing acts to people in period costume.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-x4VBVmIDg

[URL]https://www.birth-of-tv.org/birth/assetView.do?asset=BIRTHOFTELEV19001___1131963102359


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> Any Brits remember Leonard Sachs in 'The Good Old Days'
> 
> A man who swallowed Roget's Thesaurus introducing acts to people in period costume.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-x4VBVmIDg
> ...


 :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

My Dear Shaver:

We disagree. You see an aggressive "stick it" as a resumptive thought to the competent justification of well-versed prose. I see it as a complete change of direction.

Though I believe my theory to be correct, perhaps you might begin a fairly-worded poll. Or we could exercise our dueling pistols at dawn. Whichever you prefer is fine for me.

Herr Shirtmeister


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> My Dear Shaver:
> 
> We disagree. You see an aggressive "stick it" as a resumptive thought to the competent justification of well-versed prose. I see it as a complete change of direction.
> 
> ...


Disagreement, then, shall be our decorously fitting conclusion. I resist and by doing so thwart the temptation to further provoke. In this capacity I demonstrate nobility, as is often (but not always) my wont.

A duel? You're on! Select your iron Sir, I vow that I will smooth your creases till you cry submission.


----------



## arnaudr (Oct 30, 2011)

A poll sounds fair enough.

Pistols and iron, not so much.

I have a lot of admiration and respect for Mr. Kabbaz and do not know much about Mr Shaver to comment on. But I humbly feel that this is getting out of hand and request an end.

Verbal duels are never conclusively won or lost. They are best laid to rest.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

arnaudr said:


> A poll sounds fair enough.
> 
> Pistols and iron, not so much.
> 
> ...


Sounds good to me. RIP.


----------

