How many do you have?

[kay &!*]

I don't think I was jumping around. I tried to make my position clear already.

I never said I thought women (as in the gender) were bad at finances. What I was saying is that in regards to handbags, it seemed like (to me) that they weren't worth all that money, so women spending all that money on handbags is like guys who invest in comic books and action figures and cars - if you wanna throw that in there - it's a passion thing I suppose.

It's not a black and white position, but my position has always been consistent. You just didn't get it.

Where exactly did I attack you personally? If I did, I apologize because the only place where I did intend to give you a sarcastic jab was when I said you are a true lady.

And you can call me anything you call, I don't care. I am free to jab back at ya though, if I feel like it. I can get as vulgar as anyone if I wanted to. I just don't, in this case.

it is a black and white position, but you just made it complicated for yourself.
how the **** are you going to agree to Thor's comment in the beginning, which was clearly sexist and biased, then reason yourself, and then conclude that you are aware that both genders are susceptible to spend on impractical things?!??

not once did i try to disprove by saying anything sexist like "actually, women rule the world" but instead, i've been trying to prove that women are NOT incapable of finances and how men, too, can splurge on impractical things. funny because throughout all that blabbering of yours, you somehow ended with the same position i was in all along. if you disagreed with Thor from the beginning, why did you bother replying to my "bullshit" post towards him?

and i understood your argument how women spending on handbags are equivalent to guys spending on comic books/action figures. what i questioned you was how are guys justified to put so much into their cars.. your answer? "it's practical". one minute, you are defending the practical uses of the better sound system, making it faster, etc.. AS IF investing into a car has MORE uses than a handbag. but the next minute, you are saying that cars are like handbags because they are both "passions that each gender indulge", meaning both are EQUALLY worthy. WTF?

anyways, it's a nice day out.
have the last say if you want.


and Thor have flipflopped, but one agreeing (or should i say, disagree!?) along makes him just as bad.

[Thor]

not once did i try to disprove by saying anything sexist like "actually, women rule the world" but instead, i've been trying to prove that women are NOT incapable of finances and how men, too, can splurge on impractical things. funny because throughout all that blabbering of yours, you somehow ended with the same position i was in all along. if you disagreed with Thor from the beginning, why did you bother replying to my "bullshit" post towards him?

Wake up, kay(what's your face), you seem to make less and less sense, are you on something .

You can say all you want that "actually, women rule the world", it has not happened, is not happening and will never happen.
And I did not see in any of your posts in this thread the proof that "Women are not incapable of finances. All I read are your frequent use of profanities and that does not help your arguments.

I also did not see any response from you to the following:

So perhaps the ladies can share their investments in other things to even out the "pigeonholed" perspective.

Other than fashion, what do you ladies invest in?

Continue with your personal attacks on people that disagrees with you as I see that is your only way to engage in a debate.
Go cry to your mum about my comments about you, you loser.
I am just tired of your profanities and personal attacks. If you cannot allow room for another person's opinion, GET LOST, I CANNOT BE BOTHERED WITH YOU.

[Sourplum]

Wake up, kay(what's your face), you seem to make less and less sense, are you on something .

You can say all you want that "actually, women rule the world", it has not happened, is not happening and will never happen.
And I did not see in any of your posts in this thread the proof that "Women are not incapable of finances. All I read are your frequent use of profanities and that does not help your arguments.

I also did not see any response from you to the following:




Continue with your personal attacks on people that disagrees with you as I see that is your only way to engage in a debate.
Go cry to your mum about my comments about you, you loser.
I am just tired of your profanities and personal attacks. If you cannot allow room for another peoson's opinion, GET LOST, I CANNOT BE BOTHERED WITH YOU.

Pfft! It's funny. The Pot Calling the Kettle black is all I say in your post. Sure, Kay may have used expletives and profanity, but you just did the same, so your OTHER thread about people becoming defensive and using profanities in their argument is MOOT.

[yittz]

Lol i visited the other thread first too.

I am all for leave Kay and her profanities alone. It's not too much effort to skip the *#&*% and move on to the rest of her arguement, which I find is logically presented.

Damn, Kay is out for the day, I'd love to see some fireworks before the mods come and clean this up

[kay &!*]

i'm here, yittz

Wake up, kay(what's your face), you seem to make less and less sense, are you on something .

You can say all you want that "actually, women rule the world", it has not happened, is not happening and will never happen.
And I did not see in any of your posts in this thread the proof that "Women are not incapable of finances. All I read are your frequent use of profanities and that does not help your arguments.

I also did not see any response from you to the following:




Continue with your personal attacks on people that disagrees with you as I see that is your only way to engage in a debate.
Go cry to your mum about my comments about you, you loser.
I am just tired of your profanities and personal attacks. If you cannot allow room for another person's opinion, GET LOST, I CANNOT BE BOTHERED WITH YOU.

hmm, i wonder what the edit was for? hah.
anyways, i believe my position still stands for the reasons others have mentioned. read past the swears and the argument is logically presented. if you're going to say i don't make sense, at least have the ****ing courtesy to tell me why i didn't.
and oh yeah, tell me to get lost because i am immature, childish, ignorant, etc. but couldn't i say the same to you? hah. what sourplum said, nitpicking one's diction and ignoring the overall argument makes the person doing it look dumb.

[kay &!*]

oh and by the way, out of all my posts, you chose the one with the least amount of **** and say all you see are "frequent use of profanities and that does not help your arguments."
amusing.

[yittz]

oh and by the way, out of all my posts, you chose the one with the least amount of **** and say all you see are "frequent use of profanities and that does not help your arguments."
amusing.

Seriously kay, why you cleaning up your act with less #$)*(@#U%. I miss the days of good ol' jennie from the block posts. Those had the true harmony of symbols and letters.

[Thor]

Wake up, kay(what's your face), you seem to make less and less sense, are you on something .

You can say all you want that "actually, women rule the world", it has not happened, is not happening and will never happen.
And I did not see in any of your posts in this thread the proof that "Women are not incapable of finances. All I read are your frequent use of profanities and that does not help your arguments.

I also did not see any response from you to the following:




Continue with your personal attacks on people that disagrees with you as I see that is your only way to engage in a debate.
Go cry to your mum about my comments about you, you loser.



I am just tired of your profanities and personal attacks. If you cannot allow room for another person's opinion, GET LOST, I CANNOT BE BOTHERED WITH YOU.

After a long and restful sleep, I reflected on the above post.
I am withdrawing the above comments as I think that they are inappropriate, wrong and in bad taste, and should not have been made.

And to Kay, I offer my most humble apology for that response and the comments.


And do not look at this as flipflop, but just that I want to do what I think is right to correct the error .

[kay &!*]

After a long and restful sleep, I reflected on the above post.
I am withdrawing the above comments as I think that they are inappropriate, wrong and in bad taste, and should not have been made.

And to Kay, I offer my most humble apology for that response and the comments.


And do not look at this as flipflop, but just that I want to do what I think is right to correct the error .

whilst i accept your apology, i still do not like what i saw in the other thread. i am not trying to twist things around and go off topic, and i'm not asking for an apology for that either. just wanted to let you know that i posted a reply in regards to cedric's post before seeing this post. what's posted is how i felt at the time and i will not go back and "change" my opinion. however, if i had seen you apologized earlier, i would have refrained.

Seriously kay, why you cleaning up your act with less #$)*(@#U%. I miss the days of good ol' jennie from the block posts. Those had the true harmony of symbols and letters.

HAHA. ohh, you've noticed! (i'm curious, did anyone else? ) i thought i was the only one that was aware of this hahaha. i don't know why i cleaned up my act.. the good ol' jennie and imthatlady days right you don't know how many times i edit before posting now a days.. i guess i am trying to limit myself from the use of swears as adjectives so people can take me more seriously.. and i thought people were tired of seeing so much ******* so i was doing you guys a favor!

[Thor]

HAHA. ohh, you've noticed! (i'm curious, did anyone else? ) i thought i was the only one that was aware of this hahaha. i don't know why i cleaned up my act.. the good ol' jennie and imthatlady days right you don't know how many times i edit before posting now a days.. i guess i am trying to limit myself from the use of swears as adjectives so people can take me more seriously.. and i thought people were tired of seeing so much ******* so i was doing you guys a favor!

You be surprised how many people did know. You gave the clue much, much earlier:

piercings: 8 and counting
hair color: brown

And you know I do apologise if I deem that I did something wrong.
Remember, you posted a bland image of yourself thinking that noone can makeout how you look. I improved the picture into the likeness of you and you were really upset. And I apologised to you thru a pm.

Dark, long silky hair, That was quite a while ago.

[remember_Cedric]

piercings: 8 and counting
hair color: brown

With that, plus swearing profanities in her posts, doesn't define her as a bad debater.

She's swears and is blunt but she makes sensible posts in her debates. Feeling unmotivated to address to an opposer's every point made, that happens to some of us.

Some of us love the fact that she's bluntly honest. maybe you too, will grow to embrace that fact? LOL

[Thor]

With that, plus swearing profanities in her posts, doesn't define her as a bad debater.

She's swears and is blunt but she makes sensible posts in her debates. Feeling unmotivated to address to an opposer's every point made, that happens to some of us.

Some of us love the fact that she's bluntly honest. maybe you too, will grow to embrace that fact? LOL

Nope, never said that she is a bad debater.

Yes, and how could not embrace someone with the long silky hair and the huge cute eyes .

[jiang bao]

it is a black and white position, but you just made it complicated for yourself.
how the **** are you going to agree to Thor's comment in the beginning, which was clearly sexist and biased, then reason yourself, and then conclude that you are aware that both genders are susceptible to spend on impractical things?!??

not once did i try to disprove by saying anything sexist like "actually, women rule the world" but instead, i've been trying to prove that women are NOT incapable of finances and how men, too, can splurge on impractical things. funny because throughout all that blabbering of yours, you somehow ended with the same position i was in all along. if you disagreed with Thor from the beginning, why did you bother replying to my "bullshit" post towards him?

and i understood your argument how women spending on handbags are equivalent to guys spending on comic books/action figures. what i questioned you was how are guys justified to put so much into their cars.. your answer? "it's practical". one minute, you are defending the practical uses of the better sound system, making it faster, etc.. AS IF investing into a car has MORE uses than a handbag. but the next minute, you are saying that cars are like handbags because they are both "passions that each gender indulge", meaning both are EQUALLY worthy. WTF?

anyways, it's a nice day out.
have the last say if you want.


and Thor have flipflopped, but one agreeing (or should i say, disagree!?) along makes him just as bad.

You still can't understand what I am saying even though I've repeated several times. While I think investing in handbags is impractical, it doesn't mean I think all women can't handle finances.

And I don't see you replying to where I went personal against you other than where I said you were a "true lady," and I stand by my word. I don't think I was out of line to say that at all given the tone of your posts. You have shown me nothing to change my opinion.

If you expect me to take you seriously, you have to show the ability to compose and understand a thoughtful argument. All you do is fly off the handle with curses and obnoxious smileys.

[kay &!*]

You be surprised how many people did know. You gave the clue much, much earlier:

piercings: 8 and counting
hair color: brown

And you know I do apologise if I deem that I did something wrong.
Remember, you posted a bland image of yourself thinking that noone can makeout how you look. I improved the picture into the likeness of you and you were really upset. And I apologised to you thru a pm.

Dark, long silky hair, That was quite a while ago.

??
i was wondering if others noticed how i've limited my use of profanity, not if i was a previous user..

You still can't understand what I am saying even though I've repeated several times. While I think investing in handbags is impractical, it doesn't mean I think all women can't handle finances.

And I don't see you replying to where I went personal against you other than where I said you were a "true lady," and I stand by my word. I don't think I was out of line to say that at all given the tone of your posts. You have shown me nothing to change my opinion.

If you expect me to take you seriously, you have to show the ability to compose and understand a thoughtful argument. All you do is fly off the handle with curses and obnoxious smileys.

so i said you can have the last say and i'm going to stick by it. i'll just grit my teeth and bite my tongue. this will not be a hostile argument but rather, pointing out where you have flawed:
--> i clearly repeated your "gray" position so that means i fully understood. i even quoted that i understand how you believe both genders are susceptible to spend on passions they indulge. it seems to me, like YOU'RE the one not getting what I'M trying to say. if you are still confused, perhaps other posters can help you out ???
--> pemberly have mentioned it and so have i. many times. let me do you a favor and paste it again. "you made it personal by implying that she's not a lady and that you are above such unlady like things. if you were really wanted to illustrate that you are the more "ladylike" person, then you shouldn't have stooped so low and lost your objectivity."
i said i didn't care that you said i'm not a lady, but the fact that you think you are better and more "morally correct" because you are taking the high road ? seems like you love to criticize my profanity/smileys instead of my points proven.
--> and what you said just now further reinstate the fact that you always have to use that as an excuse to not take me "seriously". again, i find it amusing that you had to repeat how my frequent use of profanity distracts you from providing an adequate response when really, i only used one swear word in that post. and the smileys? lol, that's a first. never knew i was banned from smileys too. too much distractions, huh?

there, no expletives and swears. no smileys either. you understood this post clearly, yeah? OH! sorry, but just HAD to just that last smiley. this too.

[jiang bao]

You are just unbelievable. This is what you wrote in your last post. Does this sound like you actually acknowledge what I am saying?


"it is a black and white position, but you just made it complicated for yourself.
how the **** are you going to agree to Thor's comment in the beginning, which was clearly sexist and biased, then reason yourself, and then conclude that you are aware that both genders are susceptible to spend on impractical things?!??
how the **** are you going to agree to Thor's comment in the beginning, which was clearly sexist and biased, then reason yourself, and then conclude that you are aware that both genders are susceptible to spend on impractical things?!??"

I agreed with Thor to the extent that I think that investing in handbags is impractical, like male geeks who invest in other impractical things. I bet all you saw was the "he's quite correct" and flied off your handle. Did you bother to try to understand what the words that followed was actually saying that there are many capable women in finance too and my view of bad investing was pointed at the handbag theme? Hell, that's what I even wrote.

Here is my exact quote:

"Actually, he's quite correct. That's not to say all women are morons. Certainly there are many capable women in the world of finance too, but in general, women investing in handbags and stuff is akin to male geeks investing in comics, video games, and action figures."


And the bolded line below is what you wrote in an earlier post about NOT referring to my "lady" comment as what you meant by my personal attack on you. And then now you finally can't find anything else, so now you're eating your word and going back to that.

you may have tried to set everything out "clearly" but jumping around doesn't prove anything. one minute you're saying one thing, the next you're saying another thing.
the impression you're giving off is you'd rather take the "high road" since these **** are harming your ability to provide an adequate response. are you suggesting if i had taken out the expletives, you would have refuted?
and i wasn't referring to that lady comment
even if i was, did i ever said otherwise? i admitted the fact that i've used far too many **** and i'm only calling you names in the previous post because well, you deserve to be called a dipshit.

And no, I did not mean I was morally better than you. What I meant was that I was taking the high road in not going into a cuss-fest with you. I even said in the very same post that I WASN'T ABOVE writing expletive-ladened diatribes, but I did not feel like it in this case. I mean, for god's sake, I even wrote out the reason why I wasn't going down the cuss-fest road. What else do you want me to do to be clear???

Basically what you did was write like a pissed off teenage girl, and then when someone can't stand you, you claim personal attack. My sarcastic "you are a lady" comment was totally warranted. I don't even care about you calling me "dipshit" and you're gonna whine about me suggesting you're not a lady when you couldn't put a civil sounding argument together?

For someone who tries to come off "cool" (and that's quoting you, saying that using profanity is "cool" in another thread) you sure don't have much thick skin, do you? I mean, you are going to harp on me making an off-hand comment about the profanity and annoying tone that you are not a lady as a personal attack? Really? Is that the best you can do?

Imagine if I called you a name. Gimme a break.

[kay &!*]

LOLLLL. if you think im unbelievable then you're ****ing twice as unbelievable. what i ****ing quoted was what pemb said, and i thought i said that i didn't care about you calling me a lady or not? read the other half of her ****ing quote and it says "that you are above such unlady like things" which can also be translated as thinking you're better which i clearly ****ing said that was what i meant by "personal attack" eating my words???
hahaah and that answer about being "cool" was something i pulled out of my *** so don't take it to the head
and how does that not acknowledge what you're saying??? seems like youre the only one that can't get shit through that thick *** head of yours whilst everyone else gets the logic. but, does it even ****ing matter anymore whether i got your "analogy" or not? BECAUSE EITHER WAY, YOUR ******** STILL JUMPED FROM AGREEING TO WHAT THOR SAID AND THEN DISAGREEING AND REASONING YOURSELF. that's the point i was trying to make. i don't see you saying anything about that but instead..whine that i don't understand. so you can say i didn't get what you were trying to say but quite frankly, you didn't understand either smart ***.

go ****ing whine because i used too much swears.
i am an angry teenager girl. go ahead and call me names.

[jiang bao]

Ok, I missed the part about where you were offended at. That's my bad, and I take back the you eating your words part in my previous post.

As for the other things, "morality" "jumping" "agreeing/disagreeing with thor" etc., there's nothing else for me to say. I've addressed them, some several times, already. Just wanted to reply and get the record straight on my oversight regarding the eating words thing.

[jadebunny9]

A question for the girls here.

2 guys ask you out. You like them both.........blah blah blah blah blah

I'd go out with both. Nothing wrong with maximizing opportunities. =D




And now back to bags...

and i don't know about other girls, but i purchase expensive handbags for the status symbol, the quality, the label, and the design.

Yes. Bingo. Whereas some ladies would like to justify their purchases as "for durability, fashion, quality, design, etc.," I really believe that it's all about the status symbol. Some of our ladies here might really be going for the superior quality of designer handbags, but I know a lot of girls out there that really can care less for that and are only interested in the status that these designers come with.

Coach, LV, Gucci, Fendi, and a lot of other designer bags out there look really ugly, and I would never spend a fortune on those. With LV though, I do agree that the quality is great, and if quality's the most important thing for you, then by all means, go for it.

I have around 20 bags, all brandless of course. First, it's because I can't afford the designer ones. Second, I don't feel that I need to worry about quality at my age and income. Whenever my bags get ripped or torn up (and this only applies to the cheaper bags that I get from Asia), I just patch them up and they're good to go. Actually most of my cheap bags have lasted me for many years, and should last me many more years. I just have a bit because I tend to fall for cutesy designs.

But I admit that I'm guilty of wanting one. I still want to get my hands on one of those classic Chanel flaps. The rest are still ugly.




But like most people, I do have a splurge sink. Whereas I don't spend on handbags as much, sunglasses really get me. This is probably the only case where designer items are justified. I've tried wearing those 6 dollar Forever21 sunglasses, a pair from Urban Outfitters, and some Nine West ones that I got as an emergency pair from Macy's, and I have to admit that they're pretty much crap. My nose starts hurting after a while, and the material would easily get bent out of shape. Designer eyewear FTW here.

[blueberry]

I seriously refuse to buy any handbags with LV/Coach/Gucci or any brandname symbols written all over it. All my handbags have 1 small logo on it, so they don't scream "hi, I'm a LV/Coach/Gucci". And sometimes I put the side with the logo/name facing my body, so it's hidden.

Of course, if you are a handbags junkie, then you'll probably know it's a designer handbag anyway just from the model, but if not, it'll be a bit harder to spot the brandname. I simply refuse to be the brand's free walking ad when I already paid a lot of money for the bag itself.

The only time I flaunt the brandname is when I go to Asia, where you have to appear rich when you go shop because otherwise those freaking mall SAs won't even look at you let alone give you service. But everynow and then, I love to go to mall wearing T-shirt, shorts, flip-flop and go annoy those people

[mi do ri]

Men, how many wallets do you have? One or maybe two?
Women, how many handbags do you have? Three?, Four? Six? or maybe Eight?

So women probably spend a hundred times more on handbags than men on wallets.

Are women nuts? or men more realistic?
Are women vain and men more practical?
Maybe men use their money more wisely compared to women.

I have about 4-6 shoulder bags, about two tote bags, and 4 coin cases. Every single one of my bags costs less than $25 and I bought them spread out over the course of 6-8 years. I don't think that is considered going nuts. I'm not one of those girls who would save up to buy the next 'it' bag/purse. I like mine to be cute, comfortable, and well functional. I think the bold comments are unfair.