Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Its got to stop
not every is as faux pas-ey as walkabout, you know?
but youre entitled to your opinion
Nobody in their right mind would favour them over trainers from a comfort point of view
There would be not a chance in hell of me spending £200 on footwear.
but shirley there's an elments of *how well made* do I think these are? ie I'd never pay more than£10 for topman pumps but I paid 120 for some waliking boots when I was 16 and I still have them now. If I'd bought cheap ones I wouldn't.
But I really think that's a bit of a fallacy. I don't for one minute think that a pair of shoes for £40 are going to be any more or less durable than the equivalent shoes costing triple that. Obviously if you're going budget with price you can expect to get shoddy workmanship but I just can't see how the leap between a *normally* priced item of clothing and an *expensively* priced item of clothing can be matched with the same gulf in quality. It just doesn't add up to me.
Obviously something like a pair of walking boots is different because they have a specific use and requirements for that use are more subject to durability etc.
If anything (and this is purely anecdotal) I'd say that the £10 t-shirts I buy at gigs/from Threadless hold up a hell of a lot better than the absurdly priced ones from the likes of All Saints that my housemates seem to favour.
Every time something goes up £20 in price, so a £40 pair of shoes will probably be twice as good as some that cost £20, but an £80 pair probably won’t be twice as good as the £40 pair. But there is still some increase in quality (unless you’re buying something where part of the appeal is the price, rather than the price being a function of the appeal), and it is about working out at what point the quality reduces where it becomes unacceptable to you.
Basically what I’m saying is that I agree with you to a point, but I think it is a personal thing.
That's the key right there ^
And unless it's with something like walking boots as above, I think clothing is an area where that is extremely prevalent and it seems insane to me.
Problem is that places like Office charge loads of money for shitty 'fashion' branded products. Which makes the sense of value seem warped. 100-200 on a pair of decent leather shoes that fit and will last you years with proper care is money well spent.
Trousers = shoes
However in general I agree. Smart shoes and anything but skinny black jeans just doesn't work.
and thus are fune with jeans
if you have a shred of dignity left
Fantasy role play facilitator. Dungeon master is a bit.....theo-ey
is that different?
Boots are not in the category of 'shoes'
so ill continue to do it.
but wear trousers with them instead. As God intended
Didn't have any work trousers to wear and you cant wear trainers to work so i was juat walking around in Y-Fronts. Immaculate shoes though
are people using the generic word "shoes" to be specific about a certain type?
(SEAN, WHY CAN'T WE ^THIS THE OP?)
Not gonna lie to you, i'm looking pretty sharp today! I also have a fitted light blue shirt on!
Thats allowed, surely?
sales people's pointy shoes.
trousers + trainers = ok, go.
jeans + shoes = oh, no.
Thinking of teaming my dark green trousers with my white Converse.
Bloke at my old work wore a suit in the office with a pair of vans everyday.
but black trainers with jeans is also a no no for me.
brown shoes or other 'casual' colour is fine with jeans, especially if pointy.
I recently bough some loafers and wear them with shorts. How about that?
I had already googled this picture http://cf.bizspeaking.com/image/bizupdate_b7ab079b887ee44ecca350f04cbde4f61c4cb865.jpeg to mock you for being a brown trainer wearer but now it's all gone to waste.
I did own some brown trainers when I was 15 though, so I'll imagine I'm my 15 year old self and feel a bit ashamed looking at that photo.
if I am going to a restaurant with my parents, who for some odd reason still think you need to dress a touch smarter than normal to go to TGI fucking Fridays.
a) you're going running
b) you're 12 years old
For gigs and club nights you need a pair of high tops.
if so, i agree that this is acceptable.
no favoured brand.
If in doubt, add a cravat is my motto
I don't even...
Trainers... are shoes. Shoes are (non-sock) things people wear on their feet.
I'm very, very confused.
I have never in my life heard or seen any kind of terminology division like this.
Is it a regional thing? Or are you just all a bit mental? Because...
You know what trainers are
but shoes would refer to shoes that are not trainers (or boots)
That's sort of like if a thread said 'PEOPLE WHO have pizza for lunch. You should only have food for lunch.'
And then you say to me 'Pizza is a sub-category of food. Food would refer to food that isn't pizza (or ice-cream). Yeah?'
Both he OP and your post have such a ridiculous logic fail that I don't really even know how to comment on it...
i don't make the rules
you're doing this again.
Shoes are an all encompassing type of thing. There are several types of shoe, and shoe is not a specific type of shoe.
I would actively avoid wearing trainers with jeans. I does leave the options somewhat limited, so I choose a classic desert boot which says 'stylish yet practical'
you're very wrong.
Of course, like everything, it's how it's done.
the last one - YUCK
but it "works".
i won't judge you
i haven't got any shoes anyway
Pointy shoes in general are an abomination. Why would anyone want to wear a winklepicker? Disgusting
because square ones can't gouge in all that well.
but they're not really because its a long empty point, and you look really hard.
---end thread ---
don't even give a fuck.