Things you should know by now, but only just discovered

CheezePavilion wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

As someone who grew up wearing jeans because they were tough and cheap, the idea of people spending tons of money and doing fancy things for more "authentic" jeans astounds (and disturbs) me.

I really want to ask why, but I like this thread so much even I don't want to derail it.

I thought he was pretty clear in that he wore jeans because they were tough and cheap

This needs to be in the OP:
IMAGE(http://cdn2.hark.com/images/000/006/087/6087/original.0)

Schrensky wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I really want to ask why, but I like this thread so much even I don't want to derail it.

I thought he was pretty clear in that he wore jeans because they were tough and cheap :P

And it disturbs me because in my mind, they're [em]for[/em] being tough and cheap, and they get worn out because you've been doing things in them that made their toughness handy and their cheapness desirable. So special treatment for super expensive jeans is kind of like "wait... what?"

I feel the same way about flannel shirts, honestly. Those are for wearing because it's cold out. (And they are (were) reasonably tough and cheap.)

Hypatian wrote:

And it disturbs me because in my mind, they're [em]for[/em] being tough and cheap, and they get worn out because you've been doing things in them that made their toughness handy and their cheapness desirable. So special treatment for super expensive jeans is kind of like "wait... what?"

I feel the same way about flannel shirts, honestly. Those are for wearing because it's cold out. (And they are (were) reasonably tough and cheap.)

Stop making sense! Just stop it right now! If some fashion victim with more money than sense actually listened to you then you may be responsible for the collapse of an entire industry! Leave the stinky people in their unwashed $200 jeans alone!

Hypatian wrote:
Schrensky wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I really want to ask why, but I like this thread so much even I don't want to derail it.

I thought he was pretty clear in that he wore jeans because they were tough and cheap :P

And it disturbs me because in my mind, they're [em]for[/em] being tough and cheap, and they get worn out because you've been doing things in them that made their toughness handy and their cheapness desirable. So special treatment for super expensive jeans is kind of like "wait... what?"

I feel the same way about flannel shirts, honestly. Those are for wearing because it's cold out. (And they are (were) reasonably tough and cheap.)

Nth.

What really bakes my noodle is the ones that you pay $200 for with holes/wear/etc already done to them.

Hypatian wrote:
Schrensky wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I really want to ask why, but I like this thread so much even I don't want to derail it.

I thought he was pretty clear in that he wore jeans because they were tough and cheap :P

And it disturbs me because in my mind, they're [em]for[/em] being tough and cheap, and they get worn out because you've been doing things in them that made their toughness handy and their cheapness desirable. So special treatment for super expensive jeans is kind of like "wait... what?"

I feel the same way about flannel shirts, honestly. Those are for wearing because it's cold out. (And they are (were) reasonably tough and cheap.)

No, no, no. Tough, cheap jeans are tough and cheap.

$200 "distressed" jeans are neither tough nor cheap. Not the same article of clothing at all, and fulfills an entirely different purpose. May as well compare a sports bra with lingerie - yes, they both cover your nipples, but they're designed for quite different purposes in mind.

momgamer wrote:
Hypatian wrote:
Schrensky wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I really want to ask why, but I like this thread so much even I don't want to derail it.

I thought he was pretty clear in that he wore jeans because they were tough and cheap :P

And it disturbs me because in my mind, they're [em]for[/em] being tough and cheap, and they get worn out because you've been doing things in them that made their toughness handy and their cheapness desirable. So special treatment for super expensive jeans is kind of like "wait... what?"

I feel the same way about flannel shirts, honestly. Those are for wearing because it's cold out. (And they are (were) reasonably tough and cheap.)

Nth.

What really bakes my noodle is the ones that you pay $200 for with holes/wear/etc already done to them.

I hate that I only learned that people would pay 200 dollars for worn out jeans after someone else thought of it and made loads of money. There has to be other ways to take people's money... "Pre-scratched iPhones"? Get the second-to-latest generation iPhone in an already-worn state. With authentic nearly-removed boy band sticker on the back. "Pre-broken-in new cars"? Buy it new, drive it 500 miles of "break-in" time, then sell at a premium?

See, Stallman couldn't come up with a clever acronym for WILDEBEEST.

Hell, Stallman couldn't come up with a clever acronym for GNU.

Malor wrote:
See, Stallman couldn't come up with a clever acronym for WILDEBEEST.

Hell, Stallman couldn't come up with a clever acronym for GNU.

But it's recursive!

Well I think I certainly learned a lot about some of you that I should have known, but only now just discovered.

Jonman wrote:

May as well compare a sports bra with lingerie - yes, they both cover your nipples, but they're designed for quite different purposes in mind.

Examples like this demand proof in the form of pictures.

Ok maybe this is the wrong thread for that...

Stele wrote:
Jonman wrote:

May as well compare a sports bra with lingerie - yes, they both cover your nipples, but they're designed for quite different purposes in mind.

Examples like this demand proof in the form of pictures.

Ok maybe this is the wrong thread for that...

Yes, pictures please. People want to learn!

Cue mandatory Jeff Goldblum pic in 3...2...1...

IMAGE(http://themobileculture.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Picture-16.png)

Using a fork to dip your Oreo cookie is wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

Yeah, I appreciate the invention but that goes against the spirit of the act.

Damn Fork Dippers, ruining our grand traditions! Go back to Burning Man with your utensil-soiled cookies!

IMAGE(http://britrish.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/304148.jpg)

I should have known about this thread weeks ago, but just discovered it

Edit: Speaking of fork dipping - if you're trying to lose weight, but have a high calorie dressing with your salad, dip your fork in the dressing before taking a bite of salad, rather than just pouring the dressing on top of the salad; you'll eat less dressing, but have a comparable amount of flavor.

My icanhascheezburger site maneuvering just got easier...

MemeBase wrote:

IMAGE(http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/internet-memes-memebase-is-the-keyboard-friendliest.jpg)

What’s even more fun? Keep pushing “J” and you’ll automagically go to page 2! And then just “K” some and you’ll get page 1 right at your doorstep! It’s practically so true! Try it today while keyboards exist!

This is not even a weird “J/K” joke attempt!

It's the only way to survive Google Reader.

I've finally figured out how to open a beer bottle with a lighter. Now the pub is not quite so embarassing!

I'm not one to generalize, but everyone who dips Oreos with a fork is a godless communist who barbecues puppies because the sound of their screams lulls them to sleep.

Chopsticks.

trichy wrote:

I'm not one to generalize, but everyone who dips Oreos with a fork is a godless communist who barbecues kittens because the sound of their screams lulls them to sleep.

FTFY, the puppy screams are annoying.

Nosferatu wrote:
trichy wrote:

I'm not one to generalize, but everyone who dips Oreos with a fork is a godless communist who barbecues kittens because the sound of their screams lulls them to sleep and the morning snack is delicious

FTFY, the puppy screams are annoying.

better

That fork-oreo thing reminds me of this:
IMAGE(http://wondermark.com/c/2010-03-05-601chopsticks.gif)

muttonchop wrote:

That fork-oreo thing reminds me of this:
IMAGE(http://wondermark.com/c/2010-03-05-601chopsticks.gif)

I think we have all thought of this. It just makes sense.

That would be the thing that gets me to learn how to use chopsticks.

Speedhuntr wrote:

Yeah, I appreciate the invention but that goes against the spirit of the act.

Oreos go against the spirit of biscuits anyway.