or as one RMer phrased it: style over substance

agree/disagree?
let's discuss.

I'd argue style may well be an acceptable substitute for substance, but in no way can it transcend it's fundamental nature and BECOME substance.
case in point:

hot chick is fuckable but usually turns out to not be lovable.

this thread is veering dangerously close to kevin casey's wheelhouse

I didn't have him in mind whilst creating said thread, however, you are correct-
Kevin Casey is the poster child who embodies the campaign agenda of image is everything

if not by his own image, most certainly in his tastes and attitude towards most things - not to mention his laughable degree of discriminating behavior in regards to women.

I was thinking more along the lines of daily encounters with this attitude - like working for a company - it's not about what you do, it's about how good it makes you look.
And if that can include making someone else look bad in the process, all the better

Which seems to be the status quo regardless of the profession

what happened, mary malice?

This is true to a point, I think.

I find myself in a tough place being a single guy at 25 in the Phoenix/LA area. Out here tattoos are rad, and so are guys with tank tops and flat brimmed, sideways baseball hats (with the sticker still on the brim). I have none of these. And usually girls who are 18-24 are not interested in talking about ideas, but instead are interested in the guy I illustrated.

But I find as they get older, ideas are important. I talk more easily with a girl in her late 20's and early 30's. But I wish that wasn't always the case.

hahaha- that's funny, or nice of you to ask, maybe

nothing's happened that hasn't been happening in my office for the last 6 years or so - I think I've just reached my limit of corporate bullshit that deals only in doing that which makes the company/department/person look good to someone else of importance to them rather than working towards putting out a great product/service

my thought is no one provides a product or service because it's good, useful, innovative, functional, creative, blah, blah blah.
Products and services are put out there so the providers of those products and services can TELL everyone how good, useful, innovative, functional, creative, blah, blah blah, they are.

Conversely, problems aren't addressed and resolved because it's the right thing to do or because it improves the overall functioning of a product of a service, they're addressed based on how BAD it makes someone look.

do you work for skymall magzine, malice? and randy, since when do you not live in wisconsin?

you got a problem with Orthopedic couches for dogs, friend?
http://www.skymall.com/shopping/detail. ... =102971112

and nope, I work for an information services company - which will be happy to tell you all about SkyMall, their executives, what kind of funding they have, who wants to buy them, and just about anything else you can think of, including what kind of computers they use to do their work.

This is a good example btw

My brother is out west working. And since my income isn't that impressive, I live with him while I work on the grind. I don't feel all that bad, considering he recently got a divorce and would be living alone otherwise. He needs his supportive brother.

i can't really empathize with either of you because of my penchant for talking about hollywood veneer with vapid college girls

I could have used this thread as a reference when talking suit shopping with Doug RR

Hey, give me some credit. I left home, drove out here, and left behind all my relationships for a distant dream that I might never see.

how are you handling "futon hip"?

futon hip?

I have a bed. It's decent.

in college i had one of those futons that is sloped upward in the middle and i rolled off of it three times over the course of a semester

Yeah, I would never do that to myself. For college I just found some crappy bed frames and put them together.

The bigger a corporation gets, the colder it becomes.