Re: Okay, I need an explanation.
 

Maybe I'm just not understanding the conversation we're having. But I'm saying that the presumption is flawed and there shouldn't be one since family dynamics have changed somewhat significantly. You're saying people shouldn't be surprised that the law carries the presumption and should protect themselves by having their SO sign a pre-nup. What?

Besides, how many people actually want to present their spouse with a fucking pre-nup. They are commonly viewed as insulting.

Yes. And right now, the law adopts a presumption that made sense years ago. I'm not saying it should go the opposite direction and I'm not saying the judge should have complete discretion on what to do. But I don't think the law works fairly as it is applied now and I don't exactly have the time to sit down and hammer out a new one.

See above, smart ass.

TM

Re: A fashion board in which sometimes we'll remember to post spoiler warnings
 

Also a question of whether you need a bunch of suits or not. If you need some for less money to fill out your wardrobe, you could do worse. If you're looking to add one or two suits a year, wait for the nordstrom sale in June and/or July (at least that's the timing in DC area).

Re: A fashion board in which sometimes we'll remember to post spoiler warnings
 

I have a TM Lewin suit on its way from the UK. Lewin has a great return policy, so there's really no risk. I bought it when all suits were on sale for £195 (a sale which happens about 4x/year), and when the exchange rate was 1 GBP to $1.40 (approx). The GBP prices quoted by UK sites include VAT (17.5%) which is eliminated when they ship product outside of the EU/UK. I found a 10% coupon code and used it. I paid a total of $190 with shipping (£8). I will report on quality/fit.

http://www.tmlewin.co.uk/content/products/20179_n.jpg

Re: A fashion board in which sometimes we'll remember to post spoiler warnings
 

2.

In my pre-law career I went from a "dockers and polos" office to a "suits always" office.* Banks was my daily suit. I wore the coats for about 15 minutes a day, so the real issue was making sure the pants fit well and the jacket hung well from a hook on the back of my door.

Mysteriously they all shrunk a bit after going to law school and getting married. If I needed to wear a suit more than once a month I would go back to them to fill out my wardrobe. Their casual clothes are just overpriced crap, though.

*I actually thought this was a joke during the interview because the guys interviewing me were wearing what appeared to be industry standard cheap slacks and dress shirts. Little did I know they had cheap matching jackets back in their office.

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.
 

There we go! Now you sound like a lawyer again!

Re: A fashion board in which sometimes we'll remember to post spoiler warnings
 

Good lord. How dreadful.

Britain's Got Talent
 

And Susan Boyle's got competition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVU4IkzMNIo

Re: A fashion board in which sometimes we'll remember to post spoiler warnings
 

Best place I ever worked.

The carpet was indoor/outdoor, which matched the rest of the decor very well. It had a "we converted the warehouse into office space that matches my mobile home" feel to it. Your first day you were fitted for waders, rubber boots, hard hat, and work gloves. All free!

Both the receptionist and the coffee were hot and the beer started flowing around 6 most days, 3-4 on Fridays.

The warehouse guys always flaunted the fact that they could wear overalls or coveralls while the office folks had to wear khakis and collared shirts. I actually started to envy the freedom of their overalls. And sometimes their coveralls.

That's when I thought it best to interview for the fancy new job before my awkward longing for comfortably casual pants ruined my career.

Re: Britain's Got Talent
 

That was awesome. And not just because I like Simon Cowell and love Michael Jackson's older stuff. Very cool.

TM

Re: A fashion board in which sometimes we'll remember to post spoiler warnings
 

Big, boxy suits?

http://www.howardism.org/thoughts/TalkingHeadsClip7.jpg

Not sure that's the look for me.

I don't trust the choices you're making
 

This weekend on the subway, there was this kid running wild, jumping on the seats, kicking the doors, yelling and screaming etc. The kid looked about 3 years old. The mother kept saying to her "I don't trust the choices you're making". Shockingly, this had no effect on the child. The mother then stepped it up with "you're not making very safe choices." The father just stood there like a large lump of dough. They got off at Park Slope.

Is this a particular school of parenting? "I don't trust the choices you're making?" WTF is that? I'm no parent, and don't like to judge those who are because I don't know what it's like, but that kind of thing just seems so ridiculous that it makes my brain hurt.

Re: I don't trust the choices you're making
 

I have seen this. These are the same parents who run after their children on the playground, that is already covered in rubber, to make sure they don't fall or try anything that might lead to a fall. I'm fairly certain there is a first year here at the firm who was raised under this parenting method.

TM

Barkley
 

These guys look like they have fun. Here's Charles trying to eat one piece of white bread in 25 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O210v...layer_embedded

TM

Re: I don't trust the choices you're making
 

Sounds like it. Not one I've heard of before -- a particuarly stupid school of parenting.

S_A_M

Re: I don't trust the choices you're making
 

They let them run wild on the subway, but run after them on the playground to keep them from falling?

NYC is a weird place.