Plaid Pants

[joshtpa]

  RickPro said:

i just don't like wearing shorts when i play golf. i use breathable pants though when i play. not that thick khaki or anything like that. i usually tee off no later then 9:00a.m. so i can finish my round before the afternoon shower. and the hottest time of the day is 1:00, so im outta there before then.

Wow, we play at 7am 4 days a week and there is no way I could ever wear pants in the summer's heat.

[iacas]

  joshtpa said:

Wow, we play at 7am 4 days a week and there is no way I could ever wear pants in the summer's heat.

I've found that the proper pants are just as cool - or even cooler - than shorts.

Proper pants let a little breeze through, but otherwise keep your legs in the shade.

[FlopShotArtist]

  iacas said:

I've found that the proper pants are just as cool - or even cooler - than shorts.

There is no breeze in Florida heat. Just heat and humidity.

[joshtpa]

  FlopShotArtist said:

There is no breeze in Florida heat. Just heat and humidity.

Thats the truth.

[iacas]

  FlopShotArtist said:

There is no breeze in Florida heat. Just heat and humidity.

Then it must depend on where you live. I lived in (southern) Florida for 3.5 years (Delray Beach). The only thing that made it livable was the slight breeze you'd get off the ocean. Pants were just as cool as shorts and, again, kept your legs "in the shade."

You also generate your own breeze when walking or riding a cart. Shorts can be cooler than bad pants, but good pants can be just as cool as shorts. But that's me, too. I never sweat much from my legs (does anyone?), so I've never had a problem with pants on a golf course.

[RickPro]

  iacas said:

Then it must depend on where you live. I lived in (southern) Florida for 3.5 years (Delray Beach). The only thing that made it livable was the slight breeze you'd get off the ocean. Pants were just as cool as shorts and, again, kept your legs "in the shade."

yes exactly what i was thinking. there is a slight breeze in orlando area. my pants i wear are breathable. its not like other pants that are thick cotton or anything like that where it makes you sweat. i dont sweat much from my legs at all when i play. my legs feel fine.

it does keep my legs in the shade, also keeps me away from getting a farmers tan from wearing shorts. I am a low handicap player, and i dont play with shorts. pros dont play with shorts either, no matter what the temperature is. i think shorts make you look ghetto imo. golf to me is still a gentleman's sport. I see golfers out there bringing a 6pack of beer and play golf. i see people doing happy gilmores off the tee. i dress appropriate and act appropriate at all times at the golf course. this is where i also find peace and relaxation.

[Bourbon and Coke]

  RickPro said:

thanks for the link, but man at 85 dollars im gonna wait till it goes on sale. i play a lot of golf, but i dont think they are worth 85. i might buy it if they throw is a burberry patch somewhere on it. but 85 for something that isn't for a well known designer is to much imo.

Burberry doesn't make pants for $85, much less featuring their signature plaid.

[FlopShotArtist]

I have realized it is more enjoyable in other areas of Florida (panhandle for one). Jacksonville sucks.

I just couldn't bring myself to wear pants in this inhumane heat and humidity.
It was so humid yesterday, when I took my driver out of my room and took it outside, it was WET when I stepped out the door.

[Ben]

I like to wear patterened pants when I can. I find pairs at Banana Republic, even found a nice pair at The Gap a few weeks back. Also try Urban Outfitters. I actually want to learn to sew, that way I can make my own.

  HCCLARKE said:

Have you tried

Wow, there are some serious pants in there!

[BeaSt]

aeropostale, american eagle, abercrombie, j crew, polo, old navy, and pretty much every other teenage store in a mall.

[RickPro]

  Bourbon and Coke said:

Burberry doesn't make pants for $85, much less featuring their signature plaid.

who ever said burgerry makes pants for 85 dollars?

huh who said it? huh no one not one person said burberry makes plaid pants for 85 dollars check yourself 1st

[rubbery]

These, too, will run you $85, but there not nearly as disgusting as those other pants.

http://www.ralphlauren.com/product/i...entPage=family

Also, Lacoste makes some nice plaid pants, similar in price to the polo ones, but again, very good looking.

[RickPro]

oh man great find.


thank you very very very much

i would pay 85 dollars for this, but not for loudmouth golf pants.

i already bought mine and i hope they fit true to size.

thanks again. great find.

[Bourbon and Coke]

  RickPro said:

who ever said burgerry makes pants for 85 dollars?

And here we go:

  RickPro said:

i might buy it if they throw is a burberry patch somewhere on it. but 85 for something that isn't for a well known designer is to much imo.

Let's boil this down to the underlying syllogism. The implication is in italics:

I would pay $85 for well-known designer pants. Burberry makes well-known designer pants. I would buy Burberry pants for $85. This syllogism is perfectly acceptable. However, the conclusion is moot because it is not true. Burberry does not offer $85 pants. The flaw of your post was not in your logic, but you had to be either mistaken in thinking Burberry made $85 pants (which you have made very clear that you are not ) or you were overlooking it as an irrelevant fact (which I have made very clear that it is not.) Either way, my post is a relevant contribution to this thread. Please don't troll because of a little shortsightedness.

[C-Rope1]

I wear plaid pants occasionally, depending on the weather that day

[Big_M]

  iacas said:

I've found that the proper pants are just as cool - or even cooler - than shorts.

legs in the shade... I don't buy it... shorts are cooler, but some pants are definately better than others.

I have couple pair of plaid shorts from Old Navy... http://www.oldnavy.com/browse/produc...scid=555354222

[rubbery]

  Bourbon and Coke said:

Let's boil this down to the underlying syllogism. The implication is in italics:

Not even close, my friend. He said he would buy Burberry pants if they were available for $85 dollars, and you took that out of context and made that (obvious) claim that Burberry doesn't make $85 dollar pants.

He was saying that for $85, the pants he's buying better be a respectable brand. Your inference was completely wrong; he did not imply that Burberry made $85 dollar pants. It's like someone offering you a beat-up Ford Focus for $40,000, and you responding with, "Maybe if it were a Lamborghini I would pay that much." Obviously Lamborghini doesn't make a car for 40 grand; it's just a hyperbolic way of showing that the product isn't worth the price.

[Bourbon and Coke]

It's far less obvious that Burberry doesn't make pants for $85 than Lambourghini not making a car for $40,000; it's more like saying, "I would buy a Porsche for $40,000." Gray area.

And either way, without the given knowledge that Lambourghini only makes cars with a 6-figure price tag, the statement is ineffective. When you choose to employ hyperbole (which I don't particularly believe he intended), there is some minimum threshold of absurdity that must be established.