Custer,

I won, it's as easy as that. You have provided no sources. The only thing I agree with you on is the use of khakis that doesn't mean people aren't agreeing with me when they are using khakis as a chino equivalent.

Give it up already, you've lost. I never backpedaled, I actually doubled down and beat you on everything you've said. You are just mad because you think you know a lot and consider yourself of the elite but you are just another dude who extrapolates from his personal experience (which in this case happened in Columbus, Ohio).

But where am I wrong? Quotes man.

Those people saying khakis almost surely mean light colored dress pants. They are just stupid, hence why they are using the term khakis. Using them as a source is weak.

Also chinos come in colors like baby blue, and light pink. If thats your definition f business casual you may want to reflect on that.


In before, chinos are the definition of Business casual assuming the match the following colors

Seems like a poor defintion

At the end of the day if you are told to dress as business casual and don't know anything else, and you think wearing chinos is the go to, you are doing it wrong.

LT: Are squares rectangles?
SPURIOUS: Yes, squares are the defintion of rectangles.

No. 1:
This is the thing we argue about the entire time.

No. 2:
And this is the one where you are so ****ing wrong and full of yourself. You make up definitions and extrapolate your own ****ing opinion.


I am not sure if you agree or disagree whether or not chinos are the definition of business casual. But if you are not then you'd be wrong the third time.

Edit:
and you threw in No. 4:

Lol perfect. Thanks. Now you look silly denying the bet. And not a single source talking about the frequency of chino usage in finance. I may be overestimating their non usage, but your sources don't back you up.

I think it's >50%, you think it's less, I suggested a bet to try and proxy, you declined. Gg.

Individual opinions don't prove you right anymore then they prove I am right (my experience at jpmc).

But yea you "won". One things for sure you look silly.

Remember guys, for the longest time, the only thing I was wrong about according t spurious is a statement I meant where I admitted to genetalising. Perfect.

For the longest time you were mostly arguing that I was wrong. So you were wrong about that but that would be quoting all of your posts.

Your experience does not matter and now enjoy your commute to work, I assume that's what's taking you 13 hours.

I never said you were wrong about chinos being business casual, but it's not that simple. That's my entire ****ing point. And they are far from the best pant choice for a generic business casual event.

Again the bet is open.

And fwiw I have much more knowledge and experience outside of jpmc. I have friends that work in finance as well as I went to a top tier business school in the us.

It's back to the squares and rectangles, yes chinos fit the defintion of business casual but a lot of places that say business casual will not allow chinos.

Jpmc's dress code isn't an anomoly, it's a large portion of the business casual world in the us.

I do think your whole infatuation with casual fridays makes you look silly. Casual fridays are anomalies. The casual friday at my work is still considered business casual but allows jeans. They are always more lax then what they would be applied to a day to day dress cde, but I guess your infatuation with those proves the point that you know chinos are not worn all the time in business casual settings.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120839219154621413

I know it's no wiki spurious but work with me here.


I know. 2008. But first link I clicked.

And I literally searched business casual wall Street

Because if you want to talk finance might as well go to the source. Or stick to ****ty wiki quotes of blogs.

Please use quote, not sure what that article tries to tell me?
FT >>>>> WSJ, so my source is still way better than yours.

Jahahahahahaahajajajjajaa

Nice troll man, you got me

What are you trying to tell me? I really hope it's not what I suspect it is.

Compare the two authors of the articles, come back to me


The ft piece is literally a blog piece from some dude who refers to wiki. You are effectively quoting wiki. But I don't blame you, you clearly didn't read the source post. You just blindly quote things. A little critical thinking is needed.

I point all that out to you and you still use it as a source

Hahahahajajajajajahahaha

Thanks for that man.

Like I don't know where you went to school. But the first rule of quoting a source is to understand if the source is reliable and worth quoting.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt becuase you were wildly cutting and pasting, but when I point it out and you still stand by it. Lololololololo

I was quoting Wikipedia, which is worth quoting and reliable. What are you trying to tell me?

Wikipedia is agreeing with me and that is all that matters because it's the most commonly used source to find definitions.

Lol

Thric

Qfp

Requoting because you added more.

You know who else isn't relevant? City x, y, and z. You can't just keep taking out places and saying they don't matter and don't count. Guess what? These cities exist and do count towards the argument. Columbus isn't some joke of a city. It's the 15th most populous city in the US.


No ****. Acting as if their BC counts because they do it one day of the week is a joke. It's disingenuous. You are a moron for not realizing this. lol spurious, as usual.

Let's go one step further. Say they were business formal, but on Friday you could wear jeans. Yeah, that'd for sure be the definition of business casual. Again, you are missing the point of the discussion, which is, are chinos business casual? And you wanted to vehemently argue yes, with no qualifications about how business dress codes vary. Again, lol spurious.


Oh ****, you got me. I didn't read the entire Wikipedia page. Again, your a moron for not realizing crowdsourcing this answer (which, not shockingly, is what Custer was proposing in a bet. Oh wow.) is appropriate for this since people's BC definition varies. You get enough people from different workplaces, maybe you'd find out the answer. What a novel idea! lol you, again.

So currently we have:

Chinos are not BC:

Me
Custer
Biesterfield
Mullen (not really explicitly, but he said he couldn't wear chinos in his workplace)


Chinos are:

Spurious



Looks like Custer would be killing this bet. Also, Mullen works in finance and Biesterfield might as well. So, lol spurious, again. Your username is totally fitting.


Also, to address Tony, sounds like in his environment chinos would be totally fine.