and that indicating is even direr than this one. In fact, I might, in a in shape of inexcusable hyperbole, choose to have a flaming tire slung around my neck than this dress-necklace combo, but that’s just because gowns with unnatural and undetachable fashion jewelry (as opposed to beading, which is natural) are one of the (many) things that set me off on a rant. To wit:
Why? I just don’t get it. Is finding and putting on a pendant such a chore that a person needs to be relieved of it by one’s other garments? half the time the pendant isn’t necessary, anyhow, which implies that you have those events to rest up for the times when you absolutely have to wear one. Anyway, a dress with an embedded pendant is never as great as a dress without, quality-wise; ditto the connected pendant versus one that leads its own independent life.
I expect that this is yet another infraction of one of my basic rules, which is “be what you are.” If you are a dress, be a dress; if you are a necklace, you ought to be a necklace. If you are a button, button. If you are a belt, you ought to loosen and tighten; a drawstring ought to draw and a tie ought to be able to be untied, ought to situations warrant. If you are believing about adding something that is only for show, and which doesn’t actually function, that’s a good indication that you don’t truly need it.
Thankfully, these dreklaces are akin to other types crosses, such as zedonks and ligons, and can’t breed.
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
Related
the first dress and the last dressMarch 12, 2008
So What?December 10, 2008With 143 comments
Rude? Or just Clueless? Or Something Else?April 19, 2007