Chicagoist: Whatcha Wearin'

Spook

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:53:39 -0600

“But I will not tolerate needlessly abusive comments about a writer.” Well o.k. then! Dy-noooo-mite! Of course I thought the deleted sentence of my now reposted comment (I hope I can take the liberty to say reposted by calmer heads of Chicagoist staff who realize that the edit key should be used judiciously,with context, and history), was far more about my perception of the actions of a “colonized mind” of a person of color as defined by established by thinkers/writers like Fanon and Freire. Of course I do realize that I'm making an assumption that the Chicagoist writer in question is a person of color based upon his “name”. Just like I make the assumption that your choosing to focus on the so called “sexual reference” and then to publish it with an overly harsh comment about it being “threatening, harassing, defamatory, or libelous material." is more about what you read or what you don’t read. Any way, I hope we all take something away from this or like the Fat Albert theme song “ Having fun now, learning from each other, while we do our [individual] thannnnnnnnggg nahhh nahhh naahh gonna have a good time Hey Hey Hey! Salute!

Kaonashi

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:49:35 -0600

Agreed. Don't we see enough of that everywhere else? More variety, please.

JDole84

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:55:29 -0600

I like how this section has turned from "fashion" to a "howdy, hey there new person on the street," and I mean that with all seriousness. It's like plucking a person at random and making their day that much better, it's sort of a pass it forward upper.

Tankboy

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:41:59 -0600

It was numero uno: Do not post threatening, harassing, defamatory, or libelous material. Spook maade an out-of-line sexual reference about the writer of this post. I have no problem with Spook questioning Chicagoist's subject matter -- and challenging us on what we choose to run -- but I will not tolerate needlessly abusive comments about a writer.

Ingrid

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:38:48 -0600

Would I be out of line in asking why his post was a violation? (just so I don't make the same mistake, unknowingly. I mean, I read the post and I can't remember what could have been a violation about it.)

Tankboy

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:30:02 -0600

Yes, it violated the TOS...

irishman1

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:27:26 -0600

I thought there was a post here from Spook. Was it taken off?

JessNevins

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:44:56 -0600

I agree, I'd like to see something more than middle and upper middle class white folks with style. Nothing against these people, or the writer, but check out some of the South American and Mexican Cowboys over in Logan Square. Or the Black/Latino run shops on Chicago Avenue. Some really wild styles going on there, mixing up knock-off designers and imports.

Spook

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:13:44 -0600

Ing, how it pains me to disagree with you! But I stand with Sir Heyrocc. In a city where Red Eye stupidity is rampant why let it bleed over into Chicagoist? Having Benjay with sports and mainstream culture( like the autoshow) is enough Seriously, out of three posts, Mr. Chien only once managed (barely) to cover something other than white American blandness. Now we are back to white blandness in the form of a Michigan Avenue corporate breeder. Is the fact that she is pregnant part of the story? Blueline is wrong, a pregnant white corporate clone (about to give birth to a future corporate tax accountant in an over populated world) is NOT unconventional by any stretch. But the reason why Blueline might think (erroneously) that pregnant upper class white women are not covered in blogs is because it’s celebrated for the brainwashed masses in every other venue, so some blogs opt out of this popular manifestation of mainstream culture for that reason. As much as I make fun of Chicagoist,( just to) it does have Socratic standards which it should uphold Spook out!

Killaviews

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:01:57 -0600

I like the new section. Keep up the good work.

jennaNL

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:57:14 -0600

I like this one the most of all. Those furry sleeves are a unique look, especially from a mother to be. I'm going to echo the calls I made before, along with everyone else: Detailed shots please! More on what you liked about her outfit, because I could care less that she was in a hurry. We don't really care much about your interactions w/ the subjects, unless they happen to add something to the shot, and so far they have not.

JDole84

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:46:29 -0600

I think more blogs would get attention if they tackled pregnant women... Sorry, I had to.

Stealth

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:45:47 -0600

I think if he had just asked her to step out into the sunlight (which there appears to be in the background), it might have make for a better shot. But I like the attempt to add people from all walks of life. Good choice. That being said...twins or triplets? Cause she's kinda out there. That coat ain't even beginning to cover that. But yeah I don't mind the feature. It's not like it's getting in the way of anything else. It's just...there. Why all the angst?

Navin

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:44:05 -0600

So "stomach pads" are in now?

rocketslide

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:19:29 -0600

I have yet to understand what the purpose of this feature is. Why did this woman catch your eye? Who is she? What exactly is she wearing? Why should I care about any of this? There's potential with this feature, and I hope it's realized. But at the moment, it's confusing & kind of pointless.

Tankboy

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:14:14 -0600

That's a great idea!

joshuamellin

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:12:10 -0600

yea I mean the concept of the post isnt bad the post itself is just really stupid.

sherlaura

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:12:05 -0600

I like this section of Chicagoist... but then again, I like clothes. I agree with Ingrid, I'd like to know the brands! Or instead of two, very similar pictures, maybe one full length pic and one close up of one of the items.

BlueFairlane

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:08:23 -0600

dude...it's a web site. There's room for something to appeal to everyone, even red eye readers. I'm not into fashion personally, but I like seeing the site diversify its features. I'd hate to see a site only about things that I like. That being said, the Tim Daly comics still suck.

lbo206

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:06:22 -0600

US weekly? I think you might be missing the purpose of this blog. As I understand it, this is for everyday, off-the-street fashion on real people, not celebrities who have someone pick out which clothes they should wear each day.

Ingrid

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:05:49 -0600

Such negativity!! It's not like this is taking over the site. Just skip over it if you don't care for it. I think it's kind of nice seeing a Man/Woman on the Chicago streets. Regarding the picture quality...yeah...I agree...this pic just looks like a big black blob. There are no descriptions, nothing about what brands or designers. I think it would be nice to get a little more detail (maybe take the photograph in more light?) and also product descriptions, etc.

lbo206

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:03:16 -0600

100MB total for both pictures?

Tankboy

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:00:25 -0600

Unfortunately we can't go over 100MB on uploaded images, but I'll see if we can't sharpen the focus of future shots.

heyrocc

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:59:54 -0600

dude...enough with this!! This is a straight garbage! if i wanted this i would pick up a red eye or us weekly.

BlueFairlane

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:54:45 -0600

A very unconventional choice which I highly applaud ... you don't see fashion blogs tackle pregnant women often. Unfortunately, I'm still missing the talk of the fashion you had with your first two installments. I'm starting to wonder whether you just don't know anything about women's fashion, or even what questions to ask.

lbo206

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:53:15 -0600

Tankboy, is it possible to put larger, higher resolution pictures on the page? At this size and quality, it's hard to make out all of the details of the outfits.