[Saturos S.]

Drizzy Drake, on Apr 3 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

Lemon; D&G, Gucci, Mark Jacobs, or gtfo.

Ray-ban, Oakley, Burberry or gtfo.

and I'm not even that sure of ray-ban.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j168/sstriker_photos/Rubeninauto.jpg

These are oakley's. I'm in the Alfa 8c competizione spider at some car convention, thought it was worth a picture.

[Lemontime]

I've got Kink(bmx company) Wayfarer glasses... Hell good and cheap (y)!

[Drizzy Drake]

Sir Walsingham, on Apr 4 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

Ray-ban, Oakley, Burberry or gtfo.

and I'm not even that sure of ray-ban.

These are oakley's. I'm in the Alfa 8c competizione spider at some car convention, thought it was worth a picture.

I know what Oakley`s are. Jesus ****. They can be prety sick; I had a pair but they broke skating. But **** Ray-Ban and Burberry. I`ll pay for better quality, and better looking shades thanks.

Don't bypass the swear filter.

[Saturos S.]

Split Infinity, on Apr 5 2009, 04:24 AM, said:

You look intriguingly like Elton John there.

I see the resemblance. Don't know if I should be flattered or offended, so I'll go with stunned.

Drizzy Drake, on Apr 5 2009, 06:27 AM, said:

I know what Oakley`s are. Jesus ****. They can be prety sick; I had a pair but they broke skating. But **** Ray-Ban and Burberry. I`ll pay for better quality, and better looking shades thanks.

Because Gucci and D&G are better quality glasses compared to Ray-ban and Burberry? They all break just as easily. Plus, the logos on D&G glasses ruin how they look 9/10 times. As for paying extra money, they're all in the same price-range, except for mark jacobs maybe.

Burberry is just a one timer for me though, I needed some plain big-ass glasses, and burberry had the coolest.

[Toasty]

You guys are all ***s for actually knowing name-brand accessory makers.

Seriously. What the hell is wrong with you people? Glasses are glasses as long as they aren't made of cheap plastic.

[Mallick]

maybe.

[Saturos S.]

Toasty, on Apr 5 2009, 08:49 AM, said:

You guys are all ***s for actually knowing name-brand accessory makers.

Seriously. What the hell is wrong with you people? Glasses are glasses as long as they aren't made of cheap plastic.

Well duh, if they were made of plastic they would be called plastics. :silence:

But seriously, that's kind of a lame argument, it's kind of calling an Aston Martin DBS the same as a LADA VFTS (from the good old commie days), because they're both cars.

Just try and get a sense of style and you might be able to tell the difference. It isn't that hard.

[Nosferatu]

Sir Walsingham, on Apr 5 2009, 12:22 AM, said:

Just try and get a sense of style and you might be able to tell the difference. It isn't that hard.

Mmm style.

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/930/savetheworldglasses.jpg

[Toasty]

Sir Walsingham, on Apr 5 2009, 12:22 AM, said:

Well duh, if they were made of plastic they would be called plastics. :silence:

But seriously, that's kind of a lame argument, it's kind of calling an Aston Martin DBS the same as a LADA VFTS (from the good old commie days), because they're both cars.

Just try and get a sense of style and you might be able to tell the difference. It isn't that hard.

The difference, is that cars are actually awesome.


Men were not born to be fashionista's. They were born to drive at ridiculously fast break-neck speeds and almost kill themselves in the process, all the while ****ting themselves from the sheer amazement.

Then turn around and do it again. But with rocket propelled explosives strapped to the sides of the car.

[Lemontime]

Toasty, on Apr 5 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

The difference, is that cars are actually awesome.
Men were not born to be fashionista's. They were born to drive at ridiculously fast break-neck speeds and almost kill themselves in the process, all the while ****ting themselves from the sheer amazement.

Then turn around and do it again. But with rocket propelled explosives strapped to the sides of the car.

You keep telling yourself that, Mr. Bread.

[Ironsight]

Let's see. What sounds manlier, fast cars, or Gucci sunglasses?
I'd have to say cars, Mr. Fruit.

[Saturos S.]

Toasty, on Apr 5 2009, 10:16 AM, said:

The difference, is that cars are actually awesome.
Men were not born to be fashionista's. They were born to drive at ridiculously fast break-neck speeds and almost kill themselves in the process, all the while ****ting themselves from the sheer amazement.

Then turn around and do it again. But with rocket propelled explosives strapped to the sides of the car.

Okay, you can just keep wearing that pink power ranger jumper that's way to small for you, that'll certainly leave an impression.

O, and cars aren't per se awesome because of their speed. When you buy your mid-life crisis car, you want the looks. It's more practical than extreme speeds. That aside, I was using it as an example to prove a point, wish you probably do get.

[Toasty]

I get the point, but I believe DS made my point better than I did.

When it comes to things that make up manliness, things related to fashion are at the complete and utter bottom of the list.

Why do mean wear clothes? Because society requires them to.

But more importantly, because they don't give a **** what they wear.



A real man could go to work/school wearing whatever the hell he wanted, and still look/feel/be badass. That is the essence of manliness. The art of not caring about fashion.

[Mallick]

I agree with Toasty, but he proves his point terribly.

[My Best Wishes]

Toasty, on Apr 5 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

I get the point, but I believe DS made my point better than I did.

When it comes to things that make up manliness, things related to fashion are at the complete and utter bottom of the list.

Why do mean wear clothes? Because society requires them to.

But more importantly, because they don't give a **** what they wear.
A real man could go to work/school wearing whatever the hell he wanted, and still look/feel/be badass. That is the essence of manliness. The art of not caring about fashion.

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_imagearticle2214.jpg
YEA! I'M A REAL MAN, SLEEP WITH ME.

You're an idiot Toasty. While I'll agree that the people who go around with all fluoro clothes and **** look like tools, there's nothing wrong with having a sense of style and being well dressed.

[Lemontime]

Toasty shops at walmart.

[Saturos S.]

Lawl watch.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j168/sstriker_photos/Bondsuit.jpg
James Bond does make a good point on my side.

[Aquamarine]

Toasty, on Apr 5 2009, 11:14 AM, said:

I get the point, but I believe DS made my point better than I did.

When it comes to things that make up manliness, things related to fashion are at the complete and utter bottom of the list.

Why do mean wear clothes? Because society requires them to.

But more importantly, because they don't give a **** what they wear.

A real man could go to work/school wearing whatever the hell he wanted, and still look/feel/be badass. That is the essence of manliness. The art of not caring about fashion.

As much as I'd like to agree with you Toasty, you're wrong. I say that I would like to agree with you because I'm not into fashion all that much. I just like to wear what I feel comfortable in. Unfortunatley, it IS important for guys to think about what they wear/what sunglasses they have and so on. It's just not nearly as important for them as it is for girls.

Anyhow, like I said, I wear what I want to wear no matter what people tell me. However, I'm lucky that what I like to wear and what I feel comfortable in also looks good on me, and people rarely complain about my style. It's kinda different than the usual, and girls seem to like it.

Sir Walsingham, on Apr 5 2009, 09:22 AM, said:

But seriously, that's kind of a lame argument, it's kind of calling an Aston Martin DBS the same as a LADA VFTS (from the good old commie days), because they're both cars.

One of my best friends drives a LADA. It's actually a pretty good car, I can tell you that.

[Toasty]

G-DUB 3000, on Apr 5 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

I agree with Toasty, but he proves his point terribly.

'Twas my intention.

http://www.goldensun-syndicate.net/forum/public/style_images/gssv3/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />watch, on Apr 5 2009, 04:27 AM, said:

YEA! I'M A REAL MAN, SLEEP WITH ME.

You're an idiot Toasty. While I'll agree that the people who go around with all fluoro clothes and **** look like tools, there's nothing wrong with having a sense of style and being well dressed.

That man is freakishly sexy. I'd get in his pants any day.

King of Town, on Apr 5 2009, 04:50 AM, said:

Toasty shops at walmart.

I shop at Old Navy, actually. Though occasionally I shop at ROSS or something. Depends on if what they're offering is way over priced. I will not buy a shirt or pair of pants over $20 (and that's pushing it), and I will not buy a sweatshirt over $25 (also pushing it, but I might go for $30 if it seems well worth it).

I usually buy $10 shirts.

Aquamarine, on Apr 5 2009, 05:53 AM, said:

As much as I'd like to agree with you Toasty, you're wrong. I say that I would like to agree with you because I'm not into fashion all that much. I just like to wear what I feel comfortable in. Unfortunatley, it IS important for guys to think about what they wear/what sunglasses they have and so on. It's just not nearly as important for them as it is for girls.

Anyhow, like I said, I wear what I want to wear no matter what people tell me. However, I'm lucky that what I like to wear and what I feel comfortable in also looks good on me, and people rarely complain about my style. It's kinda different than the usual, and girls seem to like it.
One of my best friends drives a LADA. It's actually a pretty good car, I can tell you that.

I'd like to take this moment in time to point out how exaggerated my previous post was (exaggerating is fun, really).

My point: It's all fine and dandy to make sure you don't look retarded when walking out the door in the morning, but worrying about sunglasses or anything besides your shirt and pants (and shoes too, I suppose), is too much.


Leave the accessorizing to the ladies, men.

[Saturos S.]

Gentlemen's Quarterly magazine begs to differ.

Seriously, accessoires are the fun things. Watches, sunglasses (NOT jewellery) are the awesomely fun things. So, for me, sunglasses are serious business.

[Ironsight]

Sir Walsingham, on Apr 5 2009, 05:07 AM, said:

Lawl watch.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j168/sstriker_photos/Bondsuit.jpg
James Bond does make a good point on my side.

Men dress for funtionality. James Bond and Oregon logger dress for what their jobs require. Bond's suit makes him look professional (intimdating), while the logger dresses for insulation.

[Gio]

Sir Walsingham, on Apr 5 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

Gentlemen's Quarterly magazine begs to differ.

Seriously, accessoires are the fun things. Watches, sunglasses (NOT jewellery) are the awesomely fun things. So, for me, sunglasses are serious business.

Agree on the sunglasses part, not so much the watches part, but that is cause my job is drumming and a watch is rather inconvenient for that. So overall I would have to say I agree.

[Drizzy Drake]

Sir Walsingham, on Apr 5 2009, 02:20 AM, said:

I see the resemblance. Don't know if I should be flattered or offended, so I'll go with stunned.
Because Gucci and D&G are better quality glasses compared to Ray-ban and Burberry? They all break just as easily. Plus, the logos on D&G glasses ruin how they look 9/10 times. As for paying extra money, they're all in the same price-range, except for mark jacobs maybe.

Burberry is just a one timer for me though, I needed some plain big-ass glasses, and burberry had the coolest.

Wrong again. I know many people who have had Ray-Ban or Burberry glasses that have broken much easier than any pair of Gucci`s I`ve ever seen. And yes, the logo can ruin the D&Gs, but 9/10 is a major fucking exageration. And what pair of Ray-Bans are 300$

Toasty, on Apr 5 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

You guys are all ***s for actually knowing name-brand accessory makers.

Seriously. What the hell is wrong with you people? Glasses are glasses as long as they aren't made of cheap plastic.

You ignorant little fuck.

Toasty, on Apr 5 2009, 05:14 AM, said:

I get the point, but I believe DS made my point better than I did.

When it comes to things that make up manliness, things related to fashion are at the complete and utter bottom of the list.

Why do mean wear clothes? Because society requires them to.

But more importantly, because they don't give a **** what they wear.
A real man could go to work/school wearing whatever the hell he wanted, and still look/feel/be badass. That is the essence of manliness. The art of not caring about fashion.

Since when was life all about manylyness? Unlike you, I actually care what I look like, or how I look when I go out in public, and as such dress myself in a way that I feel fitting. So I wear sunglasses? Since when were sunglasses a solely female accessory? Mark Jacobs, Guccio Gucci, Domenico Dolce & Stefano Gabbana; yup, all males fucktard.

Toasty, on Apr 5 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

'Twas my intention.
That man is freakishly sexy. I'd get in his pants any day.
I shop at Old Navy, actually. Though occasionally I shop at ROSS or something. Depends on if what they're offering is way over priced. I will not buy a shirt or pair of pants over $20 (and that's pushing it), and I will not buy a sweatshirt over $25 (also pushing it, but I might go for $30 if it seems well worth it).

I usually buy $10 shirts.
I'd like to take this moment in time to point out how exaggerated my previous post was (exaggerating is fun, really).

My point: It's all fine and dandy to make sure you don't look retarded when walking out the door in the morning, but worrying about sunglasses or anything besides your shirt and pants (and shoes too, I suppose), is too much.
Leave the accessorizing to the ladies, men.

You are smoking some serious crack son. So basically all men should look like slobs when they go out, because it`s unmanly to care about your clothes? Lemon, I guess we`re faggots because we like hats, glasses, and watches!

And wow, you are fucking chincey. 25$ on a hoodie. My Bape hoodies cost well over 300$. Pants I`ll give you, because they dont really change from company to company. Let me guess, your shoe limit`s 40$.

*facepalm* I feel sorry for you Toasty. This topic, your views on religion, your views on women; I feel sorry for you. No joke, not trying to mean here; it`s pathetic. You life a very sad existence, and will one day wake up and see what you`re missing, and what you did wrong. Ask around the forum, you`ll see..

[Split Infinity]

This is some mighty fine llama drama right here.

[Someone Else]

Can somebody explain to me wtf is going on so I know who to warn

There's nothing wrong with dressing to look good. It's fun and sociable. If you don't like being fun or sociable, more power to you =p

[Toasty]

XDDD

Come ON Skidz. Don't you notice exaggeration when you see it? I even pointed it right out.



For christ's sake people, I'm not saying you should just buy random things from wally world and call it good. But men should not know the names of designer brands of clothes. It's just sheer ******ry.

Making sure you look good is fine. Making sure you know whether one pair of glasses was designed by who and whatnot, is just gay.



And honestly, I think this way because I hate decorations. If a material item doesn't serve a purpose, I don't want to waste my money on it.

Why in god's name would you spend $300 on an item of clothing that will either a) go out of style within a year or two, b) become too small for you within a year or two, or c) fade/otherwise wear out within the span of 5 years or so? I mean, sure, when you look at it, $300 over two or five years isn't much. But your spending this money on something that serves the exact same function as something else that costs $20. And chances are, they both do their jobs fairly well.


I mean, even if you consider the style to be an important factor (and I suppose I do to some extent), you can still buy stuff that looks just as good for half the price or less. All your're paying for is a name brand.



And really, other than looking like a complete ***, men should have no other concerns when it comes to clothing. We manly men have more manly man things to worry about in a manly manner.

Like cars, boats, and home theater systems that are incredibly overpriced and actually serve a somewhat useful function.




Lord knows why anyone would eve spend $300 on an item of clothing....

Drizzy Drake, on Apr 5 2009, 06:28 PM, said:

*facepalm* I feel sorry for you Toasty. This topic, your views on religion, your views on women; I feel sorry for you. No joke, not trying to mean here; it`s pathetic. You life a very sad existence, and will one day wake up and see what you`re missing, and what you did wrong. Ask around the forum, you`ll see..

*chuckle* Just because you don't see the value in my style of living, doesn't mean I'm missing out on anything. I'm perfectly happy with the life I have (though I'd like to do more traveling with friends and stuff tbh).

Drugs? I'll pass. Sex? Sure, after I'm married. Dating? I'm looking for something more than a one night stand, thank you.

Clothes? Well, I have more important things to spend my money on. As long as I don't look like a hobo or some horribly poor kid, I don't mind.

[Someone Else]

kk Toasty...

I am now glaring at anybody who thinks of continuing this.

[Toasty]

Hurry Skidz! To the PM system!

[Nosferatu]

Someone Else, on Apr 5 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

kk Toasty...

I am now glaring at anybody who thinks of continuing this.

KEEP GOING EVERYBODY. GOGOGOGOGO.

[Split Infinity]

Speaking of PM's...

Else. Get on MSN already.

[Lemontime]

Clear indicator of toasty's pathetic existence is in his >400word reply in a member gallery on video game forums.

[Toasty]

Someone Else, on Apr 5 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

kk Toasty...

I am now glaring at anybody who thinks of continuing this.

[Drizzy Drake]

Someone Else, on Apr 5 2009, 11:15 PM, said:

Can somebody explain to me wtf is going on so I know who to warn

There's nothing wrong with dressing to look good. It's fun and sociable. If you don't like being fun or sociable, more power to you =p

No, let this continue. We need to get to the bottem of this.

Toasty, on Apr 5 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

XDDD

Come ON Skidz. Don't you notice exaggeration when you see it? I did, but you cant say that you your views were similar to that. I even pointed it right out.
For christ's sake people, I'm not saying you should just buy random things from wally world and call it good. But men should not know the names of designer brands of clothes. It's just sheer ******ry. And why`s this. What makes me knowing designer brands gay? Because that`s how society says it should be? So really you`re just a bull**** conformist? Thanks for letting me know.

Making sure you look good is fine. Making sure you know whether one pair of glasses was designed by who and whatnot, is just gay. Why the fuck is it gay you Christian bitch? When I put my shades on, do I start to become attracted to guys? No? Didn`t think so.
And honestly, I think this way because I hate decorations. If a material item doesn't serve a purpose, I don't want to waste my money on it. Then don`t. Just becasue you dont like expensice accessories, doesn`t mean other people dont. Opinions. You should know by now that people have different ones.

Why in god's name would you spend $300 on an item of clothing that will either a) go out of style within a year or two Nope, sunglasses stay relatively in style for over 20 years. I know, I have a pair of 1988 Guccis that look like they were made yesterday., b) become too small for you within a year or twoShades dont have sizes. One size fits all., or c) fade/otherwise wear out within the span of 5 years or so Wrong, 300$ sunglasses will last a while. And even if they did only last 5 years, thats 5 years of looking good for only 300$ That`s a ****ing steal son.? I mean, sure, when you look at it, $300 over two or five years isn't much. But your spending this money on something that serves the exact same function as something else that costs $20. And chances are, they both do their jobs fairly well. We could use the car aregument here. Why buy a Lambo, or anything other than a Volkswagen, when really, they all get you to places.
I mean, even if you consider the style to be an important factor (and I suppose I do to some extent), you can still buy stuff that looks just as good for half the price or less. All your're paying for is a name brand. Nope, I myself like the styles of Gucci, Mark Jacobs, etc. over cheap sunglasses. You may not be able to tell the differance, but I wouldnt be able to tell the differance between a 1000$ purse and a 50$ one.
And really, other than looking like a complete ***, men should have no other concerns when it comes to clothing. Once again why is this? What makes clothing unmanly? You have forever failed to answer this to me. By your logic, that means that chicks shouldn`t play video games because it`s not a predominently female form of entertainment? We manly men have more manly man things to worry about in a manly manner.

Like cars, boats, and home theater systems that are incredibly overpriced and actually serve a somewhat useful function. Sunglasses protect my eyes from the sun fucktard.
Lord knows why anyone would eve spend $300 on an item of clothing.... Lord knows why anyone would even spend $1,000,000 on a peice of metal(cars).
*chuckle* Just because you don't see the value in my style of living, doesn't mean I'm missing out on anything. I'm perfectly happy with the life I have (though I'd like to do more traveling with friends and stuff tbh).

Drugs? I'll pass. Sex? Sure, after I'm married. Dating? I'm looking for something more than a one night stand, thank you.

Clothes? Well, I have more important things to spend my money on. As long as I don't look like a hobo or some horribly poor kid, I don't mind.

About that last part; you just dont get it do you?

[Toasty]

Cars are actually capable of doing something besides looking good.

A $1,000,000 car not only looks good, but it performs much better than say, a$100,000 car.

A $300 jacket does not necessarily do a better job of protecting you from the cold. Understand?

When it comes to cars, there are very few exceptions to that. When it comes to fashion, there's ass-loads of exceptions.


I simply do not see the value in spending so much money on clothes. I prefer spending money on something that is "alive" in the sense that it can do something. Like a computer, or a car. Something that's capable of performing a task.

My point is that you can save money on clothes, and still look good. But you can't necessarily save money on a car or a computer, and expect it to perform as well as a more expensive one.


tl;dr

There's value in spending more money on a car. There's very little value in spending more money on clothes. Especially when a high-priced car will vastly out last a high-priced hoodie.

[Drizzy Drake]

Toasty, on Apr 6 2009, 01:27 AM, said:

Cars are actually capable of doing something besides looking good.

A $1,000,000 car not only looks good, but it performs much better than say, a$100,000 car. The funny thing is, with speed limits in place in this world, you will never need an 100,00$ car, let alone a 1,000,000$ one. If you pay that much for a car, you are doing it mainly becuase it looks good, therefore defeating your point...
A $300 jacket does not necessarily do a better job of protecting you from the cold. Understand?

When it comes to cars, there are very few exceptions to that. When it comes to fashion, there's ass-loads of exceptions.
I simply do not see the value in spending so much money on clothes. But I do. And you aren`t saying you disagree with my opinions, you are flat out telling me that I`m a ******, and that my entire lifestyle is ****ed becuase I spend my money on stuff that is not essential to my survival. Let me fill you in on a little secret, video games aren`t essential either, and do about as much good to this world as humans do.I prefer spending money on something that is "alive" in the sense that it can do something. Like a computer, or a car. Something that's capable of performing a task.

My point is that you can save money on clothes, and still look good. But you can't necessarily save money on a car or a computer, and expect it to perform as well as a more expensive one.
tl;dr Yes, you can. My grandfather`s Camry is from 1991, and still runs perfectly. I don`t recall many 20 year old Lambos driving the street (if they haven`t been made that long, then forget it. The Camry still runs well though, so fuck it.)

There's value in spending more money on a car. There's very little value in spending more money on clothes. There is also little value in buying video games, in the wide scheme of things. And if you say you enjoy it, and it makes you happy, well so do my clothes bitch. Definetly not to the same extent video games do, but they still do. Especially when a high-priced car will vastly out last a high-priced hoodie.

[Toasty]

There's a thing called race tracks you know.

Infact, I believe there's one in Spokane, which is only an hour and a half away from where I live.

Anyway Skidz, all I'm say is that traditionally, it's always been women who were into accessories and stuff. If I'm a conformist for believing that, then whatever.

All I care about when walking out the door in the morning, is looking like a normal person. I don't want to look like a jock, a geek, stud, or a lumberjack. In my experience, the best way to do that is to wear a pair of jeans and a shirt I haven't worn that week. Jeans go with everything.

[Drizzy Drake]

Toasty, on Apr 6 2009, 01:52 AM, said:

There's a thing called race tracks you know.

Infact, I believe there's one in Spokane, which is only an hour and a half away from where I live.

Anyway Skidz, all I'm say is that traditionally, it's always been women who were into accessories and stuff. If I'm a conformist for believing that, then whatever.

All I care about when walking out the door in the morning, is looking like a normal person. I don't want to look like a jock, a geek, stud, or a lumberjack. In my experience, the best way to do that is to wear a pair of jeans and a shirt I haven't worn that week. Jeans go with everything.

I don`t care what people think of how I dress, I just wear that **** because I think it looks nice. Just like you think jeans and a t-shirt is fine, I like rocking shades and a Rolex and 500$ Ice Creams..

[Split Infinity]

I say we let the forum decide who has the better fashion sense. :D

Self-photo, half to full profile, five second timer, threads of choice. Any takers?

[My Best Wishes]

Cars are a social status indicator, irrelevant point all around with this discussion. The guy with the DB9 Aston Martin most of the time has more wealth then the dude with the new Honda Civic.

And $300 on a hoodie, bit excessive.

[Lemontime]

Toasty, main difference is that if you spend $1,000,000 on a car, you're pretty much a **** and have no friends..

Split Infinity, on Apr 6 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

I say we let the forum decide who has the better fashion sense. :silence:

Self-photo, half to full profile, five second timer, threads of choice. Any takers?

I'm down.

[Split Infinity]

Not you, these two fools...

[Lemontime]

You just know I'd win.

[Drizzy Drake]

Split Infinity, on Apr 6 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

I say we let the forum decide who has the better fashion sense. :silence:

Self-photo, half to full profile, five second timer, threads of choice. Any takers?

No, you dont get it. Toasty said he didn`t have fashion sense because it`s gay.

watch, on Apr 6 2009, 04:34 AM, said:

Cars are a social status indicator, irrelevant point all around with this discussion. The guy with the DB9 Aston Martin most of the time has more wealth then the dude with the new Honda Civic.

And $300 on a hoodie, bit excessive.

A million dollars on a car; bit excessive.

[Gio]

Why are some of the replies in this becoming just like some of the replies in the politics thread.
This whole discussion is becoming retarded.

[Saturos S.]

Drizzy Drake, on Apr 6 2009, 03:28 AM, said:

Wrong again. I know many people who have had Ray-Ban or Burberry glasses that have broken much easier than any pair of Gucci`s I`ve ever seen. And yes, the logo can ruin the D&Gs, but 9/10 is a major fucking exageration. And what pair of Ray-Bans are 300$

Well, I know a bunch of people who had D&G's or Gucci's which didn't even last one week of their holiday due to them falling/being sat on. It comes down to personal experience which doesn't prove anything, maybe dictate taste.

As for price, I know Oakley/Burberry/Ray-ban are all in the 120,- <-> 170,- price range. But I just get what I like, not what's expensive. I'll gladly pay 300,- for a pair of sunglasses if I really do like them. I'm just not that into D&G or Gucci when it comes to clothing/sunglasses/aftershave. I'd rather have Ralph Lauren, Armani, Tommy Hilfinger.

That doesn't mean I don't buy anything D&G, Prada or Gucci, I just tend not to.

-----

As for cars, just get an Alfa Romeo 8c Competizione Spider, relatively cheap and extremely sexy. It's the sexiest thing next to sex.

[Aquamarine]

Sir Walsingham, on Apr 7 2009, 03:50 AM, said:

It's the sexiest thing next to sex.

Sex isn't THAT sexy...

[Drizzy Drake]

Sir Walsingham, on Apr 6 2009, 09:50 PM, said:

Well, I know a bunch of people who had D&G's or Gucci's which didn't even last one week of their holiday due to them falling/being sat on. It comes down to personal experience which doesn't prove anything, maybe dictate taste.

As for price, I know Oakley/Burberry/Ray-ban are all in the 120,- <-> 170,- price range. But I just get what I like, not what's expensive. I'll gladly pay 300,- for a pair of sunglasses if I really do like them. I'm just not that into D&G or Gucci when it comes to clothing/sunglasses/aftershave. I'd rather have Ralph Lauren, Armani, Tommy Hilfinger.

That doesn't mean I don't buy anything D&G, Prada or Gucci, I just tend not to.

-----

As for cars, just get an Alfa Romeo 8c Competizione Spider, relatively cheap and extremely sexy. It's the sexiest thing next to sex.

Fair enough.

I don`t buy by price either, I just knew it to be false that Ray-Bans etc. weren`t as expensive as Gucci etc. Ralph Lauren`s the **** aswell.

-------

Nissan Skyline /thread

[Toasty]

Gio, on Apr 6 2009, 05:35 AM, said:

Why are some of the replies in this becoming just like some of the replies in the politics thread.
This whole discussion is becoming retarded.

IT WAS RETARDED FROM THE BEGINNING.


In the beginning, I was just joking around because if you;re a manly man, you can be manly in anything. In a manly manner.

[Saturos S.]

Aquamarine, on Apr 7 2009, 05:09 AM, said:

Sex isn't THAT sexy...

Yay, someone noticed the reference. But seriously that car has some fine curves.

Toasty, on Apr 7 2009, 07:50 AM, said:

IT WAS RETARDED FROM THE BEGINNING.
In the beginning, I was just joking around because if you;re a manly man, you can be manly in anything. In a manly manner.

Well, being extremely manly isn't really 'it' anymore. It's becoming more okay to be in touch with your feminine side. Not that approve of feminine men, I'm just saying that caveman are passé and that it's better to be concerned with style etc. than it is to ignore fashion entirely.

[Toasty]

I know, I was just being influenced by a sudden surge of preposterous amounts of testosterone.

[Split Infinity]

PROTIP: Never take Toasty seriously.

[My Best Wishes]

Drizzy Drake, on Apr 6 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

No, you dont get it. Toasty said he didn`t have fashion sense because it`s gay.
A million dollars on a car; bit excessive.

Top 10 most expensive cars
One over 1M and one on 1M, the Veron and Enzo, what kind of signal does that car send to others? "I'm ****ing loaded *****" as oppossed to people who can't afford it but they buy pricey clothes and that.

Toasty, on Apr 7 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

IT WAS RETARDED FROM THE BEGINNING.
In the beginning, I was just joking around because if you;re a manly man, you can be manly in anything. In a manly manner.

Yes, it was.

[Saturos S.]

watch, on Apr 7 2009, 09:30 AM, said:

Top 10 most expensive cars
One over 1M and one on 1M, the Veron and Enzo, what kind of signal does that car send to others? "I'm ****ing loaded *****" as oppossed to people who can't afford it but they buy pricey clothes and that.

Meh, true, but I wouldn't buy a veyron or an enzo if I were loaded. The Zonda and the Koenigsegg are beautiful though. The McLaren is hideous just like the Maybach.

Sure I wouldn't mind having any of those, and if I had a pick out of any car in the world, it would probably be the Veyron. I'd just put a DBS and Spider 8c next to them. Just for the looks.

The fact is, you only get a Veyron or an Enzo is when you're loaded. You can get pricey clothes without tonnes of cash. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy pricey clothes because you can't afford an Enzo. You can be an enviable upperclass kind of person as aposed to chav. Brand clothing isn't really showing off, 1M cars are.

[Drizzy Drake]

Sir Walsingham, on Apr 7 2009, 04:18 AM, said:

Meh, true, but I wouldn't buy a veyron or an enzo if I were loaded. The Zonda and the Koenigsegg are beautiful though. The McLaren is hideous just like the Maybach.

Sure I wouldn't mind having any of those, and if I had a pick out of any car in the world, it would probably be the Veyron. I'd just put a DBS and Spider 8c next to them. Just for the looks.

The fact is, you only get a Veyron or an Enzo is when you're loaded. You can get pricey clothes without tonnes of cash. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy pricey clothes because you can't afford an Enzo. You can be an enviable upperclass kind of person as aposed to chav. Brand clothing isn't really showing off, 1M cars are.

Yezzir.

[Toasty]

The Koenigsegg looks much better from the side. It's also my dream car.