Jump to content

Redhead74

Members
  • Posts

    9,254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Redhead74

  1. If your workplace is buying a subscription to share amongst the workplace I say go for it but $1800 per year is still preposterous.

    With respect to Conde Nast they know that most who would like to reference EVERY SINGLE Vogue since the 1920s will be a design label. They will be a functioning business trading in fashion and then $1800 per annum is not a bitter pill to swallow. It's a service and with fashion being SO vintage focused over the last decade I'm not surprised that they decided to capitalise on the situation. Why not? An individual is never going to read every single issue for 90 years (and for a large section of those 90 years Vogue was bi-monthly, not monthly). So good luck to them, God knows so many designers these days are just rehashing everything from the past so if they (the 'designers') can make a profit from their product, why shouldn't the source of their 'inspiration' as well?

  2. $1800 a year for archive access? What a fucking rip.

    Fucking A, it's not like it's NUGGET magazine we are talking about here :monkey:

    What part of this don't you guys understand? $150,000 for leather bound hard copy, or $1800 for online version? For most fashion brands who need to have access to reference material it's a fucking bargain. It's possible for any and every fashion label to now have access, whereas previously it was fashion's elite that could afford it only. Seems OK to me. :shrugs;

    I understand, if I'm honest with you I was just looking for an excuse to mention NUGGET magazine :lol:

    I still but magazines that I could just download, nothing beats the physical copy- I can't (will not) read books off a computer screen.

    edit: still buy, not but.

    I used to be exactly the same until I saw what Vogue looks like on an iPad. Stunning! Better than the hard copy! The backlit screen gives everything a luminosity and the sharpness of the images is incredible. Plus the way the screen is interactive means you can hide certain things like text unless you want to see it. The pages seem so less cluttered and they even put interviews with designers by video that you can watch. It's fantastic. But I think it only works for certain types of magazines. Subjects that are particularly visual are more appropriate. So I would imagine that Nugget and Playboy would be ideal. You can zoom right in to get a better view. :D

  3. $1800 a year for archive access? What a fucking rip.

    Fucking A, it's not like it's NUGGET magazine we are talking about here :monkey:
    What part of this don't you guys understand? $150,000 for leather bound hard copy, or $1800 for online version? For most fashion brands who need to have access to reference material it's a fucking bargain. It's possible for any and every fashion label to now have access, whereas previously it was fashion's elite that could afford it only. Seems OK to me. :shrugs:
  4. I remember finding this guy in New York City back in 1998 who traded in vintage fashion magazines. His name was Mike Gallagher I think. He had this basement shop with literally thousands of vintage copies of Vogue and Harpers Bazaar. He sold them individually, the price depended on the year, the most expensive being issues from the 20s/30s for US$80, a 50s/60s issue for $50 and 70s/80s issues for US$30. It was amazing but the thing was you couldn't browse through the magazines, you had to choose from the cover. While I was there there were about 3 of us in the room for the 50s/60s issues and we had all our choices laid out on the floor, making our selections. It was awesome. We all rummaged through and got really excited when we saw a cover that made our hearts skip a beat. :awesomeface:

    He also sold an entire collection, every issue of either Vogue or HB from the beginning in the 20s through to current day issue. Every year bound together in leather. For US$150,000. In 1998 he had sold 2 sets like that. One to Donna Karan, the other to someone I can't remember. I met him because I was visiting a fashion photography exhibition and he was there. There were some photos of Marilyn Monroe dressed up as Jackie Kennedy and he came up to me and said "I bet you don't know who that is and who she's supposed to be?" I answered "Marilyn Monroe dressed as JBKO". He said "uuh, yeah". Then he showed me some fashion illustrations he had and I immediately recognised them as Balenciaga. He turned to my partner and said "she knows her stuff". The response was a nod in the affirmative. He handed me a glass of champagne, we had fun.

    Nowadays Vogue have all their archives online. You pay about US$1800 a year to have full access to any and every issue. I wonder what Mike is doing nowadays? I hope he manged to clear off all those back issues. If not I'm sure he's flogging them on eBay or something.

  5. Really? Now it's basically just apps and texting numbers to pay in London. Appreciate it's different elsewhere but they want to make it as easy as possible to do it, and rightly so. That's an absolute pain!

    And the parking inspectors are absolutely rife. It's like there's one hiding behind every bush, hiding behind an illegally parked car that he's already issued a fine to, waiting to pounce. And not just in the CBD either, in the adjacent urban areas too, especially near the beach. It's a joke.

    I believe they SHOULD make it easy. Most people have no problem paying for parking in urban areas, it keeps the spaces flowing and if you want to stay somewhere for a long time go into a car park where you can stay all day. It's what a lot of people do here because its easy, but sometimes street parking is the only option and then to only be able to legally park based on how many coins you have is fucking ridiculous. I rarely carry cash at all so the likelihood of me having more than a few dollars in coin is near impossible.

  6. you don't like yourself...what have you done so horrible in life

    not to like yourself....besides not get pussy...fuck man i love myself

    and hate everyone else....not really....but kinda

    It moreso stems from being overweight as a chikd and bring bullied mercilessly for most of my childhood. Those days are long behind me now, but still, no matter how much weight I lose, I always feel like I could do more.

    The constant rejection doesn't help, either, and I'm extremely self-conscious about my height.

    That's really just scratching the surface.

    if you're actually carrying all that shit around with you still i better get a facebook

    an start apologizing to some people....

    I've met most of it go over the years. I don't really hold any grudges against people from my past, but the emotional scars are still there to an extent. No matter how much work I've done on my physical appearance over the years, it still never feels like it's quite enough. When I look in the mirror, I still see that chubby overweight kid a good amount of the time. No one liked that guy.

    I've had some of my female friends (hell, even attractive country singers) tell me that I'm "good looking" or whatever over the years, especially when I whipped myself in to shape, but I just can't see what they see, whatever that is. I just see someone that can't compete with other people in the looks department.

    As Red said, maybe that's not what's important to women, but it's still a mental block that I'd love I find a way to get over for my own personal development. I fear that I'll never really be happy with myself.

    You need a new perspective. So you were teased as a kid, so you were chubby and it gave you a complex. Big deal. I think the real measure of a man is how he overcomes the difficulties in life and there are people in this world who have overcome far more than you have and live well functioning lives. It's all in the mind and a belief (or lack of) in yourself.

    Read this book: Life Without Limits by Nick Vujicic. If you think you've got problems he was born without arms and legs and overcame every problem he had to live a successful life.

    2ptry41.jpg

    And here he is on his wedding day:

    2hyujiw.jpg

    No. Fucking. Excuses. Mate.

    • Like 1
  7. I can remember trying to pick up weed and needing like a fistful of change just to call my boy from the phone box :lol:

    It staggers me how many street parking ticket machines still only accept coins here in Oz. And it's not like the good old days when an hour of parking was $1.20. Most city machines are between $4 and $6 per hour with a maximum limit somewhere between 30 minutes and 2 hours. So in some instances you need to have $12 worth of coins handy to avoid getting a fine! WTF? We do live in the age of credit cards and the machines could easily be modified to accept card payment. But of course that would mean that less parking fines could be issued, wouldn't it! :rolleyes:

  8. Well, to think about, we've got a huge encyclopedia of everything that people can access from their phones on their pockets but few really use it for other than entertainment.. So not as much has changed because of it :lol:. I think cellphones were and still are the bigger thing... we can contact each other at virtually any time, and we do.

    Lol! That reminds me of when I did a trip to the outback with my parents back in 1989 and we met this guy who was doing a solo trip all over Australia with just a small backpack and a tiny tent. He had a Walkman, not the CD variety but the cassette variety, and he had ONE plastic cassette and a little metal box filled with tape spools, each one containing a different album. Every time he wanted to listen to a different album he had to unscrew the two sides of the cassette, replace the spool with his selection, screw it back together and then he could play the tape and listen through his headphones. :lol:

    Even back then I remember thinking what an all mighty pain in the ass that was. I think he listened to the same thing for ages until he was well and truly sick of it and then swapped the spool over. Uuuugh, thank god for Steve Jobs!

  9. The funny thing is, not only would a planter box of hardy plants do a better job, they would actually breathe a tiny breath of life and nature into an otherwise concrete, brick, steel and glass structure where no form of life, human or otherwise, is immediately apparent.

    I suspect the studs (not calling them spikes anymore because they're not) were probably considered to be a quick, cheap and neat solution. I suspect that plants and plant pots would be more difficult to look after, more likely to get vandalised and the pots would probably become makeshift urinals sooner rather than later.

    Urinals? :huh:

    Where is this place and what kind of barbarians inhabit it?

  10. People actually dump partners via facebook! Infact, something like 20% of dates are now via online dating!

    It is a different world from the one I know.

    A figure of 20% doesn't mean all that much unless the total number of dates per annum can be compared to 20 years ago. In this case you could actually say that the Internet is having a better influence in bringing people together in social situations if the total number of 'real life, physical' dates have gone up by 20%.

    The dumping on FB though? Tragic! Unless of course there's an exaggeration these days as what constitutes 'a couple'. I guess so. FB tends to bring out a lot of exaggeration. :lol:

  11. I am laughing at everybody pointing out, 'private' property. Total straw man argument. Nobody is denying that the owner has a legal right to build the spikes: what - at least I am saying - concerns, morality.

    There is a sort of extremity and mean-spiritness about it.

    That's purely an aesthetic thing as I see it. If they'd installed a couple of concrete plant pots instead nobody would be saying a word.

    The funny thing is, not only would a planter box of hardy plants do a better job, they would actually breathe a tiny breath of life and nature into an otherwise concrete, brick, steel and glass structure where no form of life, human or otherwise, is immediately apparent. If I really had to and I had some soft belongings with me I reckon I could stay the night there by laying my bum and shoulders in between the spikes and my soft belongings cushioning the rest of me from the spikes wouldn't be unbearable. At least it's dry. I'd probably tolerate a certain level of discomfort if it was a wet night in order to stay dry.

    The tips of the spikes are actually chiselled off.

    I am laughing at everybody pointing out, 'private' property. Total straw man argument. Nobody is denying that the owner has a legal right to build the spikes: what - at least I am saying - concerns, morality.

    There is a sort of extremity and mean-spiritness about it.

    Welcome to the 21st century.

  12. Well she has a style all to her own. She fucking rocks whatever she puts on, but that doesn't mean that every Vogue/Harpers Bazaar/Marie Claire subscriber should follow suit. :lol:

    The designers like to attribute an 'inspiration' to justify their choices but there's also plenty of sitting around a table and discussing in a meeting with 'those justifying the salaries' that 'pool slides' are now in because the whole platform/D'Orsay flat/wedge/ballet flat/peep toe/clog/ankle boot trend has run it's course. :rolleyes:

    At least Christopher Kane had the decency to glamourise them a bit:

    hrg9e1.jpg

  13. It's a classic example of 'trends' deciding what is acceptable or not. 2 years ago you'd have been ridiculed all the way to Saint Denis if you'd dared walk down Avenue Montaigne in Paris wearing 'pool slides' with ANYTHING. :lol:

    This is where I hate Fashion and prefer to use a sense of style to make my purchasing decisions over any fashion magazine. You're a total fashion victim or a person with no personal style if you buy into these silly dictations.

    • Like 1
  14. I wonder if it would work a bit better if you allowed the homeless to sleep there & pay them to keep intruders away. That way the owners might not have to worry about a break-in, thehouse is guarded & the homeless person has some cash to spend on food or clothes.Not everyone's cup of tea but maybe a kinder option, of course you'd have to check the homeless person is genuine & has no background of violence or robbery themselves. Not sure how you would do that though. :shrugs:

    It's a nice thought, but it's in front of a block of apartments. It's a lot of effort for building management to try and canvas resident support for something like that, and it's likely that more than one resident would complain about it. There's just too many roadblocks and spikes are, unfortunately, a much easier option. As I said before, it's the government's responsibility to put funding forward and provide proper shelter for the homeless. They shouldn't have to rely on the decency of others to find somewhere to sleep. These people shouldn't have to sleep on the street in doorways at all. We waste so much tax money on completely worthless shit in the western world, and there are people starving and homeless on our own streets. Taking care of them should be a higher priority.You'd see an instant drop in crime rates, and they might actually have the time to find a job when they're not having to worry about whether they can find a meal or somewhere to sleep for the evening without spikes in the doorway.

    I agree wholeheartedly, but I also believe that a lot of people live on the streets for exactly the opposite reason, in that they find conforming to societies 'rules' of working a 9 to 5 job, paying bills and mortgages just impossible for whatever reason. Its not always that they were driven from a safe environment due to abuse and had nowhere else to go. They're misfits in that they can't live by the majorities way of doing things. Addiction may have been a factor before, it may become a factor after, every case is different, but for many (not all) just providing them with a roof over their head doesn't make them able to work full time or be what we define as a functioning member of society. It's a very hard problem to tackle.

    In regards to the spikes obviously it was the developer of the apartment building that installed them. Clearly he's not going to sell the apartments or rent them out when residents come home at the end of the day to find someone sleeping right next to the front door. That's not only uncomfortable but possibly also a safety issue. And if he does something to help that homeless 'person' it will probably be immediately replaced by the next one and the next one and how many can he reasonable be expected to personally help?

    It's definitely a government issue, and more needs to be done to alleviate the problem. I have no idea what kind of area this is in but the developer could employ a guard who is positioned at a desk inside the front door to move anyone on who decides to settle there for the evening instead of making the whole building appear to be inhabited by heartless cunts who use spikes to deter a destitute person. It was common in Singapore to have a security desk at apartment buildings who were actually there to direct people like postal workers, maintenance workers, taxis, etc. Singapore doesn't have a homeless problem because their government is wealthy enough to provide heavily subsidised housing to everyone, appropriate mental health care and drugs are hard to come by because of the harsh penalties. Not impossible, but hard. They also have the luxury of being a very small country geographically with little necessary infrastructure and as a result they can direct their revenue to protecting its citizens. It works. It's unfortunate this can't be the case in so many other cities.

    Don't know if spikes are a good idea though. Someone, be it a child or an older person, is bound to trip and fall onto the spikes and hurt themselves.

    I don't know if that's really likely to be a problem if you look at the placement of them. rO0ABXQAbmZ7aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pbmRlcGVuZGVu

    There's actually no reason for that alcove to be there at all. If homeless people settling in that area is an issue why wasn't the building designed without it in the first place? :rolleyes:

  15. If its private property why would he need to install that? In my understanding private property with an outdoor space is marked by a boundary line such as a fence. Any outdoor space within that boundary is solely for the use of the owner, which in this case it means that the homeless person would have to enter the property via a gate or an opening in the fence, which seems absolutely ridiculous!!! I've never seen or heard of anything like that in my life? Does this really happen? Homeless people just opening the gate, walking in and making themselves comfortable under the eaves of your house? I'd be more likely to just call the police and have them physically removed because its so ridiculous.

    If those spikes have been installed in what is a public footpath, then that's not private property. It's public space and he would have no right to install such a thing.

  16. You should drop some of that vanity, it is not manly at all. You come across as shallow and neurotic. If you can't fix yourself get some professional help or start hanging out with some dudes who's got it right to simply learn from their example (do you even have male friends who you hang out with?). Maybe drinking would make you relax a bit and stop fussing so much about insignificant things like your height and looks. Love will find you if you just stop incessantly focus so much on it and your own appearance. You look good, but vanity really is unbecoming so don't ruin it. Get some hobbies that build you as a person and forget about women until you have accepted who you are.

    + 1,000.

    I can't say how much I find vanity in men a real turn off. It's probably the number one thing that turns me off. And women don't place nearly as much emphasis on looks as guys do. Just looking at GNR, Axl was the shortest but he was by far the most attractive one to me. So height isn't a factor either.

    I deal every day with girls/women getting married. They've found THE ONE. A lot of them are not beautiful physically. And when I see the wedding photos they send in to me after the wedding, neither are their husbands. McCoy, look around you. There are married men everywhere in this world who are far less attractive than you are yet they found THE ONE.

    You've done plenty of work on yourself physically over the years, now you need to do some work on what's inside. I'm tempted to say personality too, but that would be a bit harsh because I've never actually met you.

    The other thing, maybe you need to lower your standards a bit in terms of what you judge to be physically attractive in a woman. Actually realise that people who aren't 'drop dead gorgeous and hot!!!' can actually be beautiful in many other ways. It's about companionship and love, not a trophy to have on your arm.

    • Like 1
  17. Perhaps you shouldn't dress as a country singer then, it must be confusing to those you meet.On topic: Nothing wrong with replying to the girl, she has already signalled she is not interested in you in any romantic way, you might as well just accept being friends with her. Refusing to text her is just immature.

    Friends? Didn't they 'meet' on a dating site? They hardly know each other and wouldn't have met if they both weren't looking for more. Personally, I think he's wasting his time being friends. He seems to have plenty of women willing to be friends, he needs to focus his energies and his limited time on girls that are interested in him for more than that. A few random text messages doesn't exactly count as 'friendship' and she's probably not going to make a priority of hanging out with a guy she's not interested in romantically given the fact that she's 'looking for love' too.

    I'm all for widening your circle of friends as its often through these people you get introduced to others, one of which might end up being 'the one'. But I see a friendship from a few random encounters via a dating site, and some text messages to be pretty hollow in all honesty. Move on and don't look back.

  18. Can anyone explain why jelly sandals are in fashion all of a sudden? Pretty sure the only people they should be acceptable on are little girls below the age of 6 :huh:

    I agree. And don't even get me started on the latest 'pool slides' trnd aka Birkenstocks. I understand that sometimes we just gotta take our heels off and wear flat shoes but this is seriously unattractive in my mind. And the fact that the Olsen twins are wearing them in the lowest pic with socks is never, ever going to make it cool.

    fbxbvc.jpg

    (And seriously, untainted toenails on the blue/black pair :max:)

    334nmrm.jpg

    I like the stripes, too, but I'm not sure what I would wear them with! Most of my clothes are solid dark colors, so I'm afraid people would end up staring at my feet while they talked to me. :D

    I like that contrast. And I wouldn't care if people looked at my feet. :lol:

    The stripes will look great with blue jeans. They're a bit more daring and not as conservative as the solid colours. Although I do love the hot pink. :)

    Oh Google :lol:

    4b3224cb41c9d8636bf6cf03dfa6423e.jpg

    :facepalm:

    It takes nerve to walk around the streets like this, you've gotta give them that.

  19. I like the stripy ones 45miles! :thumbsup:

    Looks fantastic though :) And get the shoes...just get em, thats not a request or advice, thats an order, Red, get those fuckin' shoes, are you reading me? You, those shoes, buy, that is all.

    Since they're Dior haute couture I'd never be able to find them. These things never even make it into stores, they get snapped up by all the European fashion insiders before they make it onto store shelves. :(

  20. 45miles, I love to check those shoes out but the links not working for me. :(

    I'm wanting these shoes bad. I have just the outfit that they'd go with. I could also easily be the proud owner of the dress but given that its couture I could actually buy half a house in a decent area with the equivalent funds. So maybe not.

    6rrr5c.jpg

  21. Did you at least find out why she didn't want to see you again? I mean, so we all don't have to go through this again and again and again.

    She occasionally texts me here and there...like one out of the clear blue sky and that's it, or I'll get a random Snapchat for no good reason.

    I really hope you haven't replied.

    I'm sure he replied. :(

    Since he didn't proudly announce that he hadn't replied (knowing how popular that would be here despite the fact that its contrary to his instinct), I reckon your right, mags.

  22. And like, kids are a lot smarter than before, even if they're just dilettante types trying to look clever, they know more about history and the world and...like, just reading this forum you got people discussing all sorts of like...sociological topics and such, we were fuckin' thick as shit back then to be quite honest, or my particular group were. I mean you get socially smart and that which is never a bad thing but at the same time you have a lot of younger people who are really clued up because of the internet and stuff like that.

    I actually disagree with that. It's such a generalisation to say that kids today are a lot smarter than they were before the Internet. Kids before the Internet read books and took as much interest in history, science, art, and making stuff as they do today. The difference is that interaction between individuals has gone from our small circle of friends or local community, to the whole world. A place like this being a discussion board is going to attract those who are interested in the world and what's going on and they have the means to express it in a virtual community instead of a physical community.

    There is also in a way evidence to suggest that the opposite (kids are in fact becoming a bit thicker) is happening. It's a concern for universities that students don't have the capacity to read a whole book and dread having to read one from cover to cover. I remember reading as one of my greatest plaeasures growing up and it still is.

    According to government studies, since 1984, the percent of 13-year-olds who are weekly readers went down from 70% to 53%, and the percent of 17-year-olds who are weekly readers went from 64% to 40%. The percent of 17-year-olds who never or hardly ever read tripled during this period, from 9% to 27%.

    Knowledge comes mainly from reading and if there's a decline in the willingness to read there will be a decline of knowledge. Reading is also fundamental to training your brain to concentrate for extended periods. The implications of that are pretty huge IMO.

    Groghan, Redhead and others, if life was so great without internet why are you on this internet site so much every day?

    That's like saying to our parents & grandparents when they talk about the good old days & how simple & safe life was when young - well if it was so great why do you use washing machines, tv, dishwashers etcWe change our lives with the times, if we don't want to use the internet we don't. I am glad it wasn't around when I was growing up & in my 20s in a way, cyber-bullying is apparently the 'in thing' to do where you can bully someone you don't even know till they suicide rather than face them every day to bully them. If you're in a bad mental situation to begin with then cyber bullies can tip you over the edge.What is also becoming dangerous is this sharing of someone trying to find someone around facebook. Unless it comes from a reputable site then don't share as people use this to find people they intend to harm. Eg. I could take Redhead's photo from here & share it around the internet saying it's my sister, old school friend & people who recognise her give me her details & I go to her house & kill her as she's actually a witness to a crime I committed. The internet has wonderful assets but by the not so decent people it can be dangerous.

    :scared:

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...