Chanel Bags...

[SugarHut]

Hello....not a stealth boast, more of a quick, help me not look like a chav....

A friend of mine is in handbag shop right now. He's just text me saying would I prefer a "Chanel Quilted Caviar leather Flap bag" in black, red, white or gold.

What do I have? Discounted red as I have a red Lulu Guiness clutch. Is white chavtastic? Do I go classic black, or nudey gold? Both I have loads to match, outfit wise. Help quickly please!!!! What's best?

Googled them...I presume it's the small one. He doesn't know me that well to spend loads.

TIA!!! x x x

Did you come back especially to post that BAGSNOB? Nice.

Are you all grown woman because you're acting like a bunch of nasty teenagers. I'm really shocked.

Peace and love

What an extraordinary thread. For me, the most enraging thing about it is the use of "gift" as a verb. When did this become acceptable?

A good thing about this thread is that I discovered amber's blog twentymumthing.wordpress.com.

And then I learnt to link

Baffled why post deleted. Just picking amber up for being so crude.

You have children and say things like...

And a massive cock chartreuse.

Speechless.

I'm still really tickled by Karl says no

if the word cock shocks you best not to look at the sweaty thread! I don't think ambers children will be reading mumsnet

sweary not sweaty

Oh my god...

Are we not allowed to say 'cock' when we have children?

Why did nobody tell me...

cock cock cock cock cock

I feel so naughty...

since cocks are involved in the production of children I reserve the right to say it whenever I please

Wowsers. And I thought it was just me that people couldn't resist being bitter and snidey too!! I was mistaken!! Some of you should really stop being so unrealistically pleased with yourselves and just look at the way you speak to other people.

Good luck to you, those that behave like that. Seriously, it's pretty unhealthy.

Interesting in particular to see the orchestrated shock at people mentioning old threads when it involves part of the "clique"...strangely enough, my old threads (and those of others) have been brought up numerous times. Mainly by them. That, naturally was ok. But then the double standards all through here, well if it weren't so sad, it would be funny.

"Upside down moral ruler" Ain't that the truth.

A lot of true colours shining through on here. But then I'm about the 50th person to point that out by now.

I look at this, and all of a sudden, I'm so very thankful for the higgeldy piggeldy weirdly fabulous thing that I muddle through, called my life.

Off now...to let the beautiful minds carry on being so very beautiful....

This was about Chanel bags and the wisdom/morality of accepting expensive gifts from a man you're have coffee with twice has now been derailed into a character assassination of people posting on the thread.

But then I suppose if you counter any argument with "you're just all jealous bitches who don't now about the way the uber rich and famous live", then I suppose that it was bound to happen.

Before the thread was conveniently distracted off into Amber's personal life there had been a significant number of posters expressing concern about the OP's apparent glee at separating Coffee Man from his money by accepting gifts and then encouraging more and whether it was wise/appropriate/ok to carry on doing that.

I don't know whether those posters are wealthy or not. In my view it doesn't matter because it is the acceptance of a gift from an acquaintance who obviously believed that he was obtaining some kind of benefit by giving the items which he did, which is the issue. You don't need to have money to make a judgement call on that.

The you're all "jealous bitches" thing is just smoke.

The other thing which is clear is that there are some people like the OP who seem to believe that the value of a life lived is measured of material items and money accumulated. That they make their friendships and relationships based on that. Now, I like pretty things as much as the next person, but this focus on the value someone has to you because of what monetary benefit they can give to you is really tawdry. That shines through in the OP's posts. The first value judgement she makes about people is whether they have money of not - because to her, that is the most important thing.

I do think that it is morally reprehensible to view someone as a walking Barclaycard and I think it's actually made worse if you do have your own money, apparently like the OP does.

Anyway, homily over

As one of the 'little people,' who does not understand full significance of horrid Chanel bags and sequinned boots in the lives of lovely generous rich people, may I just tug my forelock in MissBeehiving's direction for articulating everything I wanted to say. Very well put.

And I am not part of a clique. Am educating myself on the shoes and bags of folk more important than I...

MissB agree whole heartedly.

oh MissBeehiving, you said it.
I remain, however, utterly baffled why the original poster couldn't post the photo and had to name change to do so?

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your reports. .

We've now deleted posts which break our talk guidelines, including troll hunting and repeating deleted posts.

We'd really appreciate it if you could all keep to the talk guidelines going forward.

Please report anything you'd like us to take a second look at.

.