WTF

[Faust]

Even though one of the mantras of the forum is to disconnect fashion from celebrity culture, some people seem to drag their celebrity fascination in here anyway.. did you really take a fucking picture of someone at an ATM? tabloid status.

I agree. The recent post-celebrity-for-the-laughs trend is getting tiresome. (Not aimed at interest1, since this is not a celeb shot)

[interest1]

Anyone who had to wait for a celebrity name to be announced before laughing at a picture of some schmuck wearing a hooded fleece sweatshirt tailcoat is more alarming to me than some schmuck wearing a hooded fleece sweatshirt tailcoat.

chicken– Actually, I'm an equal-opportunity shooter. just ask lowrey

[alice anise]

I don't know but taking photos of random people to laugh at them on the internetz is more juvenile than tween celebrity gawking. The dude wasn't even in Wal-Mart . . .

[cjbreed]

well if you can't laugh at random strangers, who can you laugh at?

[Sombre]

Anyone who had to wait for a celebrity name to be announced before laughing at a picture of some schmuck wearing a hooded fleece sweatshirt tailcoat is more alarming to me than some schmuck wearing a hooded fleece sweatshirt tailcoat.

You're the one who implied twice that the man was a celebrity - first, with the admittedly possibly innocuous use of "he". Of course in one meaning it refers to the person in the photo. But the pronoun "he" replaces a man's name. As you did not provide the man's name, it is reasonable to assume that you considered it old, given information, and therefore expected others to know it. Like I said, both are reasonable conclusions.

Your reply to Fry Chicken only further fueled the assumption that the man was a celebrity. Most people who read "Are you asleep at the wheel?" in reply to "Who's that man?" will assume that your response is relevant to the question. "Are you asleep at the wheel?" = "Are you not paying attention?" When combined with Fry Chicken's question the sarcasm reasonably implies "How could you not know?" Of course your response was not at all relevant to the question, but you didn't indicate that.

This rather verbose post was probably unnecessary, but I object to your snide remark "logistically impossible to shake sense into people" because you logically implied the conclusion you are accusing people of illogically reaching.

That aside, I agree with alice anise. It's a violation of privacy to post someone's photo on a public medium without that person's consent.

[diamonds]

in 'her' defense, i completely understood her posts.

[mortalveneer]

If the sheer grotesquerie of that unholy hoody/jacket hybrid didn't raise a huge "whatthefuck" blip on your aesthetic radar, didn't her accompanying text point you in the right quadrant?

I saw nothing celebrity about that dude. Pure, unfiltered, unadulterated jackass was all I got.

[Catfood]

Pure, unfiltered, unadulterated jackass was all I got.

Calling someone a jackass just because of what they are wearing is taking it a bit far in my opinion. It's just clothing after all..

[Sombre]

in 'her' defense, i completely understood her posts.

More than one conclusion could have been logically reached. The one you drew was the intended one (obviously).

If the sheer grotesquerie of that unholy hoody/jacket hybrid didn't raise a huge "whatthefuck" blip on your aesthetic radar, didn't her accompanying text point you in the right quadrant?

I saw nothing celebrity about that dude. Pure, unfiltered, unadulterated jackass was all I got.

Like I said, I see similar ugly things in real life. I actually missed the "hoodie/tailcoat/sweatshirt" part of the post, and thought the fabric was wool/cashmere. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen formal combined with casual. Dolce and Gabbana's tuxedo striped sweatpants come to mind.

I think we can consider this dead horse comprehensively flogged.

[mortalveneer]

Calling someone a jackass just because of what they are wearing is taking it a bit far in my opinion. It's just clothing after all..

Since it apparently wasn't as apparent as I thought, I was employing hyperbole. I have never met the man, and likely never will, so my judgment of him must necessarily extend only as far as this single rear image (however dubiously obtained......) will allow.

[lowrey]

not sure if this makes the discussion more or less confusing, but I too got the impression that the person in the photo is someone possibly recognizable based on the "falling asleep at the wheel" reply. obviously just a misunderstanding and not a big deal. these things happen when you're staring at letters instead of listening to words.

that is all.

back to chillin.

[mortalveneer]

^ LOL

straight chillin'

[cjbreed]

this thread has gone down the proverbial lolwut hole.


it was just something funny to look at for chrissakes. not another word about it please!

[interest1]

But cjbreed, I was busy washing away all the blame and haven't had a stab at the last word. Give me a moment and I'll be back in a jiffy. I promise I'm not reloading..

[mortalveneer]

this thread is dangerously close to creating an infinite whatthefuck loop that could imperil the very fabric of reality...