1. Perhaps that quality of fabric and seam-strength are more important to you than trendiness of cut?
2. Um, it does cast some doubt.
I'm sure I can't be the only person who has no idea why liking Brooks Brothers is such an indictment of one's taste.
Full disclosure: I once had a gift certificate to Brooks Brothers and bought two overpriced t-shirts.
I suspected as much. I'll be buying myself a sailcloth tarpulin now.
I'm going to be light on the blogging for a bit
I hereby declare the LGM actual-lawyer guestblogging jinx.
(On-topic: Eh?)
3 -- You misspelled Non-Iron Three-Quarter Sleeve Fitted Stretch Fine Stripe Shirt.
seam-strength
You calling LB fat?
It means that you have a conservative dress sense, and that you like things that are classic and rather tailored. This by no means disqualifies you from having an opinion about clothing. It may mean that you don't particularly care about fashion, but it doesn't mean that you don't care about style.
It means that you don't trust your judgment about clothes beyond the simple and the straightforward; if you feel that way, you are probably right to do so. I'm the same way.
That's arguably better for your fashion authority than my preferred method: waiting for Christmas or my birthday to come around, then just wearing whatever I happen to get.
Also, you should see my hair right now. It's atrocious -- I just let it grow out from a buzz cut, but I sometimes trim behind the ears, so it's somewhat evocative of a huge mushroom growing on my head. It would be a great foundation for a mullet.
I clicked over to the site and many of the items of clothing were unobjectionable in isolation, but the outfits they had put together were problematic. I think clothes this matchy look dumb.
There's no call for hatin' on Brooks Brothers. I have a really nice trenchcoat from there.
As a grad student, I have come to realize that I know nothing about fashion or style because no one cares what we wear (and #9 sums up about half my warddrobe), so take this with a grain of salt, but I think B's right. It's conservative and tailored, which is the dress of Überlawyeresses everywhere.
Recently a friend of mine introduced me to the concept of excessive matchiness. She had some other matchy concepts in mind, such as the meta-match, in which the patterns but not the colors matched. I thought it might be cool to have a quodlibet outfit, in which every item matches some other item which you are not in fact wearing.
As a grad student, I have come to realize that I know nothing about fashion or style because no one cares what we wear
Ummmmmmmm as a grad student, shouldn't you be aware that this postulated chain of causation makes no sense? Please don't jump down my throat the way you did after I corrected your spelling or whatever, I mean it all in good fun.
That is, there exists an item you are not wearing such that every item you are wearing matches it; the other way around would be too easy. And I agree that the outfit in 10 looks dumb; too much of a hospital scrubs effect.
6.--w-lfs-n, you little punk. Seam-strength is a good thing for skinny, medium, and whatever people because then the clothes won't stretch out or drape funny no matter how slouchily you sit or how much you sit cross-legged.
I have one pair of Brooks Bros pants I got from my local Goodwill, and while they're not exciting (I think they might not be the right size), they will be presentable for the next four years almost no matter how I abuse them.
Cool is one word for it.
10: I'm not sure that the clothes would not be inoffensive were they a neutral shade, but in powder blue?
14: I think the chain of causation makes perfect sense; no selection pressure has been exerted on her beliefs about fashion and style, so many of them are false and none constitute knowledge.
13 -- you would also need a bumper sticker or lapel pin that says, "My other shirt goes with these trousers".
16: And anyway one could infer nothing about the wearer's body type from that, because one does not know how large the clothes were. At best one could infer that the wearer liked the wearer's clothes tight.
Please don't jump down my throat the way you did after I corrected your spelling or whatever, I mean it all in good fun.
I'm pretty sure that posting under someone else's name is still frowned upon, even in this new libertine age.
6 -- JM is not implying that LB is fat, just that she has poor posture.
It makes sense enough, b-wo. Were I in a career that demanded powder blue suits (undoubtedly with matching pumps) or, more likely, demanded a certain look or style, I imagine I would have sufficient incentive to learn about fashion.
Given that most of the senior faculty wear jeans and Reeboks, there's very little pressure to be bothered with wondering if my tank tops are tailored properly or are from the right designer.
#7's spot on.
Adam, you ought to come check out the thrift stores in The OC sometimes. I'd say 90% of my current warddrobe consists of never-worn ensembles-in-the-making from Banana Republic. It's why all us Irvine folks dress so natty. (Assuming one likes lots of layered neutrals, of course.)
Because no one cares, she has come to realize that she is ignorant? If no one cares what pressure caused her to make that realization, mr "selection pressure"? (There are I guess multiple parsings of Cala's statement: either (a) I have come to realize, because no one cares what we grad students wear, that I know nothing about style, or (b) I have come to realize that, because no one cares what we grad students wear, I know nothing about style. I maintain that, even if we grant that no one cares what we grad students wear, we are not justified in concluding that therefore grad students know nothing about style. For one thing, I know for a fact that there are grad students who know something about style.)
Anyway, what we learn from LB's post is that one might have no style oneself (which is the outcome the lack of pressure might lead one to expect, if one really thought that that no one actually cares would lead one not to act as if someone—like oneself, maybe—cared), and yet be able to judge the fashion of others.
I thought it might be cool to have a quodlibet outfit, in which every item matches some other item which you are not in fact wearing.
Aren't all outfits like that?
And I suppose you sit ramrod straight at your computer to comment on Unfogged, TMK? Or even, that you stand, a la Rumsfeld, at your computing podium?
Maybe he sits on a bouncy ball. The local paper had an article about people sitting on Swiss balls at work to improve their posture and eliminate low back pain.
And I suppose you sit ramrod straight at your computer to comment on Unfogged, TMK? Or even, that you stand, a la Rumsfeld, at your computing podium?
"Computing podium" is such a great ordered pair of words. It instantly evokes Jetsonian futurity combined with stilted formality. It has limitless comedic potential.
And of course, JM, everyone here at unfogged is ramrod straight!
14: Given that fashion is, by definition, a social construct, being in a situation where, as Matt points out, no social pressure is exerted means that not knowing about it as a grad student is perfectly logical.
Of course, one could get into whether it is, in fact, true that grad studentyness means that no one cares what you wear (not true ime, although the sense of style may not be the same as in other subgroups), and whether being in subgroup A means that one is not also therefore part of the larger culture, which does care. But then one could also get into the question of whether the larger culture's concern for fashion is to be relied upon; the answer there is "no."
What we learn from LB's post is that one might have no style oneself
Not at all, because LB *does* have a sense of style. Being conservative doesn't mean lacking an aesthetic altogether. You, of all people, should know this, Ben.
Yes. But simply because no one cares about A, one cannot conclude that A doesn't know. I'll drop this now because I'm being obtuse.
But then one could also get into the question of whether the larger culture's concern for fashion is to be relied upon; the answer there is "no."
Elitist.
There are other reasons, too; for one, if the larger culture were to design fashions which would not require me to lose 50 pounds and sprout five inches, then, perhaps, I could be induced to care about what is fashionable. (e.g., skinny-leg jeans.)
Are you calling me sartorially conservative?
ramrod straight
In every sense of the words.
Me, the man who shocked Milan with my veritably iconoclastic Spring collection?
But simply because no one cares about A, one cannot conclude that A doesn't know.
What if "caring about" is a necessary condition for "knowing"? Which it is, when we're talking about clothes. Is it not?
Elitist.
At least I'm in good company.
35.-- In that case, there might be a few seams for whose strength you might show a little more gratitude!
Maybe he sits on a bouncy ball
No, I'm all about the kneeler. Makes me feel prayerful to get down on my knees. Though come to think of it, sitting on a bouncy ball might be fun too.
I didn't say anything about your clothes. I said you have a conservative aesthetic. Deny it if you can.
(Skinny-leg jeans are trendy; they aren't necessarily fashionable or stylish, especially if one isn't the skinny-legged jeans type.)
A college roommate of mine had a kneeler chair. It was fun, but I think an office full of colorful bouncy balls would be even more fun.
What if "caring about" is a necessary condition for "knowing"? Which it is, when we're talking about clothes. Is it not?
I'm not entirely convinced it is, B, and particularly not if other people are deciding how much you "care about" fashion by what you generally decide to wear to work. Half the people I knew in the fashion biz wore pretty boring clothes; the hangers-on tended to look much flashier. And some schlumpily-dressing grad students can kit up for a Friday night out with the best of them.
I understand the difference between fashionable and stylish, but I thought that trendy meant fashionable.
And someone told me that high-waisted trousers are coming back. Ugh.
43: Yes. But dressing in a boring way doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't care about style; it may mean that one also cares about other things (practicality), or that one's sense of style is practical, or that one has an appropriate sense of occasion (which, in fact, is essential. Therefore one should make an effort when one goes out for the evening, e.g., to the opera).
Trendy out here means wearing jeans which create love-handles on 86 lbs., 6'4" men. Trendy, they are; fashionable, they are not.
e.g., to the opera
Paging Mr. Davies, Mr. Davies to thread 5015 please.
Well, to me personally, trendy doesn't mean fashionable. Fashion is more flexible than trends; e.g., if lime green is the trend du jour, and citrus colors look absolutely appalling on you, you could be trendy and very unfashionable, b/c you'd look awful; or you could buck that particular trend and look fashionable by knowing how to seem updated but not slavish.
I have mixed feelings on the high-waisted trouser thing. It'll certainly be nice to be able to buy pants and/or skirts that cover one's lower abdomen for a change.
I see I've discriminated: the love-handlers work their magic on women, too.
I'm certainly not knowing about clothing, but why do working women ever wear anything but Ann Taylor?
44.--"Trendy" means more that you're following the quarter-year roll-outs. Right now, in NYC, you're wearing black leggings that end lower-mid calf, rounded pumps, a floaty little skirt, and some drapery about the top, or some version of that sillouhette with slightly tougher edges and maybe a paperboy hat.
"Fashionable" means you're in the right year or so. You're not wearing ankle-length skirts right now, maybe you've brought out your light-weight cardigan to wear this season since it's near enough, maybe you've seized the opportunity to buy a stock of ballerina flats since they're nice and right now they're everywhere. You accept, for example, that your shoulder-padded suits from the 1980s just aren't going to work right now. You accept that your 1990s neutral-colored Calvin Klein sheath just looks boring.
"Stylish" means that you've found what works and what doesn't on you, and, to a certain extent, damn the flibberty-gibbets who don't understand! While that doesn't necessarily mean that you end up like those ladies of a certain age I saw in Paris who were wearing (proudly!) their gorgeous 1960s Chanel suits, it does imply a kind of proud defiance of time and trend. But that defiance has to, um, look good.
why do working women ever wear anything but Ann Taylor?
Because it's soul-suckingly boring?
(Ballerina flats are teh suck. Sheaths are timeless. Darn it. And if someone wants to send me a 1960 Chanel suit, I'll wear it constantly.)
Hey! Ann Taylor isn't half bad for work clothes, you!
What I remember of the high-waisted trouser trend was that it made one's ass look flat and one's boobs appear to sit on one's waistband. (Admittedly, it's possible that I just had a flat ass when I was 11 or 12.) Am very happy with the low-rise jeans.
I do, in fact, agree with 51, even if I quibble with the details. Just for the record.
Ann Taylor is good, certainly.
Re 10: Um, at the risk of being mocked (why, of course, did I put up this post at all); one of the suits I was thinking about as particularly charming was that jacket, in that color, over a sheath dress in the same fabric. (Roughly this, but they don't seem to have it in the blue Oxford cloth anymore.)
"trendy", "fashionable", "stylish": terms of praise when the speaker thinks what is being spoken about looks good.
"trendy", "fashionable", "stylish": pejorative terms when the speaker thinks what is being spoken about looks bad.
I have a couple of cute Ann Taylor skirts and tops. But I feel like I have to be careful, when I wear an outfit from there, to avoid wearing conservative jewelry and shoes and looking overly matchy, or else I look, as my sister puts it, like a Desperate Housewives extra.
Big fan of linen skirts though.
Jeans are good if they sit atop the hips, not halfway down 'em (and yeah, jeans that are too high-waisted are godawful). But being able to buy tailored clothes will be a nice change, I say.
In my opinion, LB, matching jackets with sheaths are fine. The problem with 10 wasn't the jacket and the slacks, but that the shirt, too, was the same color.
flibberty-gibbets
I was watching a movie, just last night, where a character described themselves with the singular of that word.
Beige sheaths, B? Man, you would have to have some pretty spiffy accessories to make those work right now. And yes, 1960s Chanel suits are hott. Ann Taylor is fine (*sigh*), just fine: fair quality and certainly, nobody could ever say it was inappropriate...
58 -- I almost always hear "trendy" as pejorative or at best neutral and "fashionable" and "stylish" as complimentary, Unless a log of winking and eyebrow-arching is going on to cue me that the expression is ironic. (I think I never hear "trendy" as complimentary because I never listen to people who would be likely to use it in that way.)
57: Sheath with matching jacket = fine. Go for it. Don't listen to these 20-something children.
62 -- that strikes me as a really bizarre usage of the singular "they".
Jeans that are high-waisted are awful, but I am in fact wearing a pair of high-waisted dress pants right now that I purchased just two days ago, and they look fantastic. Of course, I don't have my shirt tucked in, so you can't really tell they're high-waisted.
I can't shop at Ann Taylor. Didn't we have this discussion here before? Something about women with narrow shoulders and large breasts.. I can't remember.
Of course, I can't really shop anywhere, seeing as that I'm 5'1" and my bust, waist and hip measurements correspond to three different sizes. Christ.
63: Damnit, ala the Chanel ladies, I have the right figure for the sheath, and the neutral brownish tones look good on me. In fact I have a beigeish tweed sheath that's quite form-fitting and comes with a cute boxy jacket; I got it on consignment for about $30 and it looks damn good, thankyouverymuch.
I've heard trendy as a compliment, but not for a long time. Fashionable I've heard both ways, but actually always as a pejorative when not applied to clothing (especially when applied to scholarship). Stylish I suppose is the only one I've heard frequently used in a good way.
I didn't say anything about your clothes. I said you have a conservative aesthetic. Deny it if you can.
Hmmm.... I dunno, I'm not so sure it's so cut and dried.
always as a pejorative when not applied to clothing
Oh yeah, I was only talking about clothing.
70: Good enough, that's not a denial. Also I didn't say "exclusively."
JM: Who do you like for work clothes?
Stylish I suppose is the only one I've heard frequently used in a good way.
There's always the style over substance critique.
I can't abide jewelry on my wrists. Which is a pity, b/c I have lovely forearms, but it just drives me nuts. Can't even wear a watch. I'm telling you, in a good sheath, the best accessory is having a damn good figure.
66: Agreed. Singular "they" when the referent is a known determinate person (who has, presumably, a known determinate gender—though who really knows what kind of move it was) sounds extra jarring.
But being able to buy tailored clothes will be a nice change, I say.
Something about this expression ("able to buy tailored clothes") seems kind of odd to me, probably owing to ignorance: what's the point in saying that the clothes have been tailored before you bought them? They can't possibly have been tailored to you, and if all it means is that it has a certain shape/cut, well, don't all clothes? Please, fashion mavens: enlighten me.
"Stylish" is only a term of praise, "trendy" only of pejoration. "Fashionable" sits on the border between.
75 -- I'm pretty sure you wouldn't hear the adjective "stylish" in the context of that critique.
Can't even wear a watch.
And you mock me for wearing a pocket instead of wrist watch!
As for your 72: typical of you. I try to introduce a little complexity into the discussion, and you're only interested in cheap point-scoring.
66: Yeah, should have been either "themself" or "herself"
Also, you have to remember I live in midwest hell. So "stylish" is a relative term. If I dressed stylishly by NYC standards, I'd look like an overdressed freak in this godawful town.
Tailored, w/r/t womens clothes, means a particular style rather than 'clothes that have been individually tailored to fit you' -- my fashion vocabulary and knowledge are weak, but I'd call a garment 'tailored' if it were both fairly closely fitted to the body, rather than loose, and, um, what's the word for this -- constructed? Lined pants in menswear fabrics with a crease; suit jackets/blazers with a real shape of their own rather than draping over you; straight/fitted skirts rather than anything full or floaty.
SCTim has caught me. As a grad student, I have a lot more leeway than a lot of professional women and in the various jobs I've had, was at those lower levels where I could get away with mixing and matching. Trousers from Zara, top from random thrift store, etc. I even have a couple of useful Ann Taylor things, the more liked of which were from the "Loft" line.
I would mock anyone for wearing a pocket watch in the 21st century. And you know that teasing you is one of my preferred hobbies. Deal with it.
"Tailored," as it's being used here, means basically clothes that are cut along fairly classic and/or form-fitting lines. One does, of course, get alterations to ready-made clothes where needed, and/or if they're actually really good clothes and it's worth tweaking them in order to get them to fit really well.
I don't mind being typical. It's good to have a recognizable role to play.
LB's 83 gets it right. I'd only add: "tailored" implies more points and darts in an effort to get it closer to the body. Points and darts that, if you took the pre-made item to a tailor, could be opened up and re-sewn to get the fit even better.
85 -- My brother (he's the one in the family that got all the fashion sense) looks very cool wearing a pocket watch.
As Cala said, it was the fact that the top was the same color that made that outfit bad. However, if I had to choose between sheath-jacket ensembles, I'd prefer to look at and wear one with contrasting colors. Matching jackets and skirts are fine because they have the contrast of the blouse. A sheath-jacket ensemble in the same color would be nicer if well-accessorized with contrasting accents.
This is a nice outfit, because it has a lot of pleasant contrast, but holds together well.
I usually look like a slob, you realize. I fell in the mud this weekend, while wearing my jeans jacket, and though I have not yet washed said jeans jacket I am wearing it today. Also, it's unraveling at the sleeve.
Oops, that link isn't going to the right outfit.
I would mock anyone for wearing a pocket watch in the 21st century.
I don't think you could call a preference for pocket watches a conservative aesthetic. The pocket watch has ceased to be classic at this point, unlike, say, the pin-striped suit. Sampling or borrowing of a discontinued line is innovation, or, more narrowly, eccentricity.
Actually, monochromatic shealth + jacket type looks are very good for the short, curvy women, people. Longer lines, they don't chop you into tops and bottoms, and again, the simplicity of the thing emphasizes shape rather than color.
Stylish, trendy, fashionable.
As set forth in the post, LB's standard is clothes that make her feel 'impeccably professional and very very fetching.' Only stylish remotely fits this bill, and only because it so lacks content as to mean, in effect, 'anything intentional and pleasing.' F and T depend entirely on the opinions of others and, imle, only rarely meet the IM&VVF standard.
89 -- no, I could see you in that.
That's good, because I was distinctly troubled by the belt. Maybe on the right guy, but I think he'd have to be Fred Astaire.
Sampling or borrowing of a discontinued line is innovation, or, more narrowly, eccentricity. Or affectation. The conservative aesthetic thing wasn't about the watch specifically, but was intended more generally. But I won't explain what I meant by it, either.
92: Ick! The two-colored blue pocket hankie? The like careful matching of tie pattern color with hankie and shirt? Talk about your overmatching. Plus bad tie.
But I won't explain what I meant by it, either.
Oh you. I assume, then, it doesn't relate to my penchant for anachrony more generally?
77: Am I taking crazy pills? I mis-used "themselves," the charachter string "t-h-e-y" does not appear anywhere in 62, hence 62 could contain a singular "they." Also, the character is the second of the three Meg Ryan plays in Joe vs. The Volcano.
Instead of continuing to be a troublemaker, I'm going to go take a nap.
I like accessory matching. And I think yellow is pretty and a nice respite from all the conservatism. I don't ever use overmatching to talk about accessory matching, which I think is fine, just about a general sense of unrelieved monochrome.
"could contain" s/b "could not contain"
So you used a declined, reflexive form. One oughtn't expect nitpickers to say "singular they", "singular their", "singular them", etc. as (only someone with a hyperactive sense of propriety would deem) appropriate.
100: mean.
98: Your anacrhonistic ways certainly don't hurt. Nor does the Burberry raincoat. Or the literally conservative preference for mending clothes rather than replacing them. You know, just for example.
Okay, now I really am going to go take a nap, b/c Standpipe hates it when we refer to extracurricular discussions in comment threads.
One of the few redeeming qualities of Goldmember was when Dr. Evil referred to his father's "penchant for buggery."
I don't have a Burberry raincoat. My dad has a Burberry trenchcoat that doesn't fit me.
I consider my preference for mending clothes rather than replacing them a radical one, aiming as it does to subvert the consumerist urge to consider everything not just replaceable and disposable but to be replaced and disposed of. Anyway that's not necessarily an aesthetic tendency.
And I think the anachrony thing is susceptible to ac-like argumentation.
51: Right now, in NYC, you're wearing black leggings
Heather and Jessica have lived their lives in vain.
All this Brooks Brothers linkage makes me remember how much I love men's clothes. I think maybe I'll start wearing ties, if only so I can buy this tie in blue.
I'm not particularly fashion conscious at all but the new Doctor Who makes me want to buy a pin-stripe suit -- a lot. It appears I am unduly influenced by TV shows officially aimed at kids.
Oh, man, as a skinny college kid I had a grey wool men's blazer that somehow managed to be both closely tailored and have room to carry a decent-sized paperback in the inside pocket. I loved that thing.
(That was combined with the shaved-up the back of the head haircut. Again, my deeply flawed college dating career became much less inexplicable in retrospect.)
I can finally contribute something to this thread!
Matt is referring to the new, Da/vid Ten/nant Dr. Who series now showing in Britain. We here have been watching the Christo/pher Eccle/ston ones on SciFi, which were shown in Britain last year. Both feature Bil/lie Pip/er as Rose.
I know this because of my relationship to a crazed bit-torrent fiend who has just come home from school to finish watching one of the new, Ten/nant ones, a weekly devotional here.
I object to that! I am not a fiend. I am merely an enthusiast. They are completely different things.
~I don't pay's daughter, also known as Cochava, also known as Quite Righteously Indignant
Only the fantastical reference of David Tennant and his pinstripe suit could pull me in. I've lurked about for quite a while anyway. It's really just about the pinstripe suit.
But thank you!
Hah. Sally's gotten to the point where she can read over my shoulder, and I'm going to have to explain this to her sometime fairly soon. Right now I'm still at the: "What are you doing, Mommy?" "Typing." stage.
I'm at the point of: "What're you typing?" "Quotes from this book." "Why?" "Someone asked about it at Unfogged." "Know-it-all." "I am not!" "Are too!"
This continues for quite some time. We're an interesting team.
I'm at the point of: "What're you typing?" "Quotes from this book." "Why?" "Someone asked about it at Unfogged." "Know-it-all." "I am not!" "Are too!"
This continues for quite some time. We're an interesting team.
I confess, I like the new Who too. God help me.
This reinforces the eerie similarities already established between the cultural consumption patterns of idp and me.
New Who is fun. I like it because of the fantastic acting skills of the ... actors and the overall pretty scenery. It doesn't not help that the people in it are pretty, either.
(That was combined with the shaved-up the back of the head haircut. Again, my deeply flawed college dating career became much less inexplicable in retrospect.)
Naw, that look was crazy hott. Especially if you had a nose ring.
You know, if the look wasn't the problem, something else must have been. In the interests of shielding my fragile ego, I'm blaming it all on the haircut and menswear.
Well, the menswear, sure.
Actually, come to think of it, at my school that haircut was very often worn by lesbians. (I have unfortunate dutch boy tendencies, so my comment above fits.)
At my school (both of them) as well. In retrospect, I was aiming my look at the wrong audience. (Although I did have a lesbian friend tell me that my ears were so cute I could model earrings. Given that my ears are not, in fact, particularly cute (although in that haircut they were certainly on display), the rest of the look must have been working for her.)
I think maybe I'll start wearing ties, if only so I can buy this tie in blue.
That's basically the tie version of a shirt from threadless.
re: 111
The Madame de Pompadour episode of the new Dr Who series is one of the best pieces of 'family' entertainment I've seen ages.
the best pieces of 'family' entertainment
You know, I would never let my kids watch this show, though. Way too gory, creepy, scary. I don't know how old they'd have to be, but older, for sure.
I was just going to ask that. I haven't seen it, but sounds like not for a 6 and a 4 year old?
Unfogged, however, seems to be excellent family entertainment.
not for a 6 and a 4 year old
Not for a 6 or 4 year old under my parental supervision, no. But the BBC think differently.
I agree with B at 91 that monochromatic sheath with a matching jacket is not necessarily boring. They work well for business and social occasions. I had a bronze silk shantung set up like that with matching pants, and I looked quite good. Sadly I wore through it,though I've held on to the sheath.
Silvana, Yup we did have the conversation about Ann Taylor not working for curvy women with narrow shoulders. I'm starting to revise my opinion of them. I think that their petite line might be okay.
To answer LB's original question, your preference for Brooks Brothers says that you are tall, have no boobs and reasonably slender hips.
I'm with you on Brooks Brothers, Ann Taylor, etc. but that's just because I'm such a lazy shopper. "Classic" means "less time spent at the mall next season". And while it might not make a person look fashionable and spectacular, it's hard to completely screw up.
re: 127, 128, etc
I'm fairly sure a 4 year old would not be the right age. Maybe a 6 year old if it was the right 6 year old. Probably not appropriate for one that suffers from nightmares for example.
I'd definitely think it was OK for 8 - 9 year olds and above though. It's generally no more scary than the scarier bits of, say, the Harry Potter movies but it does have its moments.
Dr Who was always a bit scary -- even in the 1970s. I don't think the current series is any different.
I watched Dr Who all through the 70s, I guess starting from the age of 5 or so. I loved it, and it constantly gave me terrifying nightmares.
My dad has a poster of a scarf-wearing Dr Who in his office, which I love and did even before I knew who it was.
re: 134
Yeah, me too. Not so much the terrifying nightmares but definitely plenty of 'hiding behind the sofa' moments. A lot of kids do like being scared.
re: 135
The One-True-Who... Tom Baker.
Although I think the latest D/avid T/ennant incarnation is very fine indeed.
Enslashenaition had run rampant. The original idea wasn't to make all real names un-googleable, it was to make that people whom one didn't want to end up on this page via a search of their own name wouldn't.
I know. :) I was following the example set by someone else above and presumed they had a reason -- not wanting to attract legions of obsessive Dr Who fans maybe? And didn't want to to step on their enslashification.
I knew "enslashenaition" looked wrong; I thought it was because it was a made up word, not because I'd added an extra "i" to "enslashenation."
I wish someone would enslashify Yogi Bear and Boo Boo.
I don't want to live in an enslashenation!
A Lucy nation maybe.
You know, all "I bet Mr. Ranger would have liked this, Yogi."; "I'm harder than the average bear.", shit like that.
Not to mention the knowing, "Hey, Boo Boo!"
What kind of person writes Small Wonder fanfic?
114 kind of ruins the enslashenization effort.
Aw, man. I thought I'd enslashified the Small Wonder slashfic.
Not only that, but, though he was mostly before my time, one of the more awesome of the kibologists, a rival of David Pacheco and Matt McIrvin at the long form (for Usenet) post.
I guess the new question is, what kind of person assembling a straight-faced collection of Small Wonder fanfic would think to include that?
Thanks for reminding me to listen to Chalice of Fire. Now that's a song!
And it ties in very nicely, with the little Dr Who theme excerpt.
I wish someone would enslashify Yogi Bear and Boo Boo.
I enslashified for just the reasons suggested, and was able to have a word about it with the author of 114. I'm a little bit concerned about the downloads also.
My wife and I watched Ba/ker back in the day, and remain amazed at how much, production values notwithstanding, it remains the same show.
131: Not exactly, but close enough for government work. I'm the matronly/stocky version of the build you describe.
I always got mixed up, as a young man, between the Tom Baker Dr. Who and the Bob Dylan who is on the cover of Blonde on Blonde.
He may be seen these days on the BBC soap Monarch of the Glen often shown on PBS stations. We're none of us getting any younger, is the first thing I thought.
We're none of us getting any younger
Yeah you're right. Never saw the show. Does Donald Macdonald carry interesting things in the pockets of his trenchcoat?
I wish someone would enslashify Yogi Bear and Boo Boo.
Has Little Britain made it over to the US?
152, 159: Wasn't that the joke in 141? Why else would he have picked just those two characters.
It's sort of a recurring theme with me.
