Where is King Solomon when you need himFollow

The real ones aren't?


Odds are if you can't tell its fake neither can the people you are buying it to impress. Good buy.

Schatzi, my black poodle, is a well trained dog, but Buster, our Golden Doodle, has those retriever instincts and devours whatever comes to hand, or in his case, mouth. In fact, he recently ate my motorcycle gloves and had been pooping a finger out a day. He also eats socks, which look lovely as he plants them all over the yard. Our backyard appears to be a laundomat gone bad.

However, I don't get angry at the dog, he's just doing what is in a dog's nature to do. Even King Solomon must put his chewable items where the royal animals cannot get them.

:D

Totem

The New Purse.

"See Spot run," said Jane.

"See Spot run to the coffee table," said Tom.

"See Spot run and grab Diane's purse off of the coffee table, while we share our friendship in the kitchen snorting coke."

"Silly Spot."

"Ohh... no!!!" said Diane "Ohh...no!!!" said Tom.

"Spot has chewed on Diane's 'Dooney & Bourke' purse!!!" said Jane.

"Silly spot, Silly Pitbull!!!" said Tom.

Diane is crying.

Jack is angry!!!

"See Jack go outside to his car," said Jane.

"See Jack come back with a semi-automatic weapon," said Diane.

See Jack say, "I'm gonna put a'cap in yo' ***** *** dog fo' bustin up my females purse!!!"

"Run Spot, run."

"Run Spot and jump."

"Run Spot and jump up, and rip out Jack's throat," said Jane.

See Jack shoot Spot.

See Tom shoot Jack.

See Diane shoot Tom.

See Jane shoot Diane.

Jane is sad, "All I have is dead and gone!!!"

See Jane shoot herself.

See Jane dead.





Fin.

Anyone who has watched Sex and the City knows the answer to this question. He should cough up the money and let her be. People can choose to have pets and invite people into their homes, but they must also assume the responsibility that comes with that. So the girl bought an expensive purse. WTF is the problem with that? What the hell is money for? Just because some people live on a tighter budget or maybe wouldn't spend that much on a purse doesn't even play into the reasoning behind whether or not she should get compensated for damage to her property. If I'm single and I have no kids and no pets and I like nice things, it's no one's damn business. If you know I'm allergic to cats, why wouldn't you warn me so I could bring my inhaler or stay home? If you invite me over and you know your dog chews on things, then be courteous and wanr me beforehand so I don't bring anything expensive, or lock him up. Isn't that just good manners?

Well. The King Solomon answer is simple:

Cut the purse and the puppy in half. Give half of each to each couple. Problem solved.


The real answer is a lot simplier. Assuming these people are actual friends and not the kind of stupid people who end up on the People's Court or whatever silly show, they should just deal with it based on relative finances. It stands to reason that if Diane can afford to buy a $200 purse (even one she got on sale for $120), and carry it around all the time, she *should* be able to replace/repair it without financial problems. If she can't afford to replace or repair it, then she is:


A) An idiot for buying a purse she can't afford.

or

B) An idiot for carrying a purse she can't afford to lose around with her on anything other then a night on the town (insert whatever fancy occasion you might purchase that $200 purse for).


Let's face it. We all own clothing and apparel that is relatively expensive for us to replace (ok. most of us do anyway). I don't make a habit of wearing an expensive tailored suit around every day. And if I *did*, you can bet I'd likely be able to afford to have it cleaned/repaired/replaced in the event something happened to it while I was wearing it. It's just common sense. The degree to which you wear/use something is in proportion to your ability to replace it. If you can only afford one nice suit/purse/dress/whatever, then you darn well should only wear it on rare/special occasions. You can expect that if you're wearing it every day all over the place, it will eventually get ruined in some manner. It just happens.


Um. Of course, if Tom and Jane are filthy rich and could afford to use hundred dollar bills as kindling, then they could certainly just be gracious and cough up the measly 200 bucks. That's just what a host should do IMO. But based on the story, I'd have to assume that 200 bucks is a reasonable amount for both parties, so that's probably not the case. And in that case, I'd say it's Diane's fault. She should not be carrying around a purse that she can't afford to replace. Heck. She shouldn't *buy* a purse that she can't afford to replace. That's just plain stupid.

First of all, what's wrong with buying a 200-dollar purse?

Some people have a taste for Rifles, some people have a taste for VGA cards, some people have a taste for cars, and some people .... like purses I suppose. If you can afford your field of infatuation, I see no problem.

My pen is a Mont Blanc collectible, Peter The Great I, 888 pieces worldwide (yes I'm showing off), and sells at Christie's nowadays for $25 000+. I ordered and bought it 8 years ago when it was released, for about 6000$.

But you know what? If it weren't for the pen, I would have never started an enthusiastic convo about brands with the president of an insurance company, that ended up as an invitation for lunch, and in return an excellent job for my fiancee.

Having these "elite" brands says a lot about your taste (not to mention financial status), and opens doors for you. Is it correct? (Politically) No ... But I could care less.

And yes, most of those who can afford it can tell the difference. Those who don't don't matter :).

As for the dog and purse situation. Suppose I was having wine in some Bohemian crystal glass, at a friend's house, and I accidentally break it. Would he/she ask for it's price? He/She might. but I would just give them the "you're cheap" look and throw the money in their face.

Diane is a cheap wannabe *****. But if she has the lack of courtesy and manners to ask for money, then I say pay up.

If we apply the same situation to an item of substantial worth, like a car, then it would be fair to pay. So I guess it's "fair" for Tom to pay, but not very polite for Diane to ask.

The former, Pat.

In which case, there are a lot of very cheap people on this board. $200, for what we Brits call a handbag, is pretty mid-range. Those of you buying bags that cost less than $50? Trust me, they look cheap and nasty and will fall apart in record time.



But will they look good in 10 years time after heavy use?

Edited, Tue Nov 29 07:37:47 2005 by Patrician

It very much depends on the item. Sure, if it is your intention to follow fads and fashions and change accessories every year, it is probably wiser to get cheap crap I guess. People who actually have style will recognise it for cheap crap however.

However some items are pretty much timeless classics, and at the high end, items are more likely to last in terms of both style and durability.

Who cares? I could probably go though any of your homes and find $120 items that I think are stupid and a waste of money.

$120 for a purse isn't obscene. I own coats that cost that much that I wear on a regular basis. I own shoes that cost that much that I don't keep in a crystal case on the mantle. What's so God awful about the purse? If a dog chewed the hell out of a $120 leather jacket (which would be fairly cheap for a jacket), would you be gasping in horror that the owner didn't buy his or her jacket for $15?

Like the previous post said, putting small grainy pics like that means nothing.

You can tell the quality of the leather by the touch, the way light reflects off it, the texture, the design, and the smell (among other things).

But I'll take my chances and say that 2 & 3 are the real deal, 1 and 4 are crap.

My girlfriend has been drooling over a Mulberry Roxanne for the last 2 years. I am currently deciding whether she has been a good enough girl this year to get one for Christmas.