What a f@ckin' joke. I take this personally. I say we hammer back - hard.

And no - the UV protection isn't the same - even if it was. Show me the Troops that still can see because of their $3 dollar dime store shades instead of Oakleys...

I'm on fire right now. F@ckin cluless media feeding stupid sh!t to stupid people with an 8th grade education that want to be told what to believe.

Let these douche bags set in the O war room as they get call after call after call about how Oakleys saved their childrens eyesight in the war.


Not that anyone here would know or care. This place is pretty much a ghost town anyway. Part time fanatics... Whatever.

I am pissed.

AEEERRGH.

I would say that we should let this slide. On one hand, yeah, it's generally wrong, on the other, more pairs for us. The only real issue I have with this article is that the average idiot will see this, and Oakley's stock value will drop.

LOL - show me Oakley stock? I assume you mean in general.

Okay, being part of the media that ran with this I will say it got blown out of proportion just because the Wall Street Journal ran with it. The reporter probably went out looking for a doctor willing to make that claim and never gave Luxoticca/Oakley a chance to explain the different qualities of the glasses. I tried to point this out in the newsroom, and the fact that they were only looking at a narrow classification of equality, but it still ran on our five o'clock news because the producer knew he could tease the hack out of it.

" I tried to point this out in the newsroom, and the fact that they were only looking at a narrow classification of equality, but it still ran on our five o'clock news because the producer knew he could tease the hack out of it."

Yet another example of why I hate the media...

Truth should trump ratings, but it never does.

I have to argue that it isn't all media. For the most part local news is pretty fair because we are in the communities and people can call to complain. National news can get away with making their own decisions knowing that most of the people that want to complain will never get a hold of them.

Someone from my office sent me this article the morning it came out and was like "Ha, see, now don't you feel stupid owning so many pairs?"

I then went into a 20 minute rant explaining how poorly-researched this article was and how pathetic it is to even rope Oakley into such a category. I showed them the Top Gun tests, the laser tests, the projectile tests...and the next day 2 people came in with new Oakley's.

F whomever wrote that article. It's so flimsy that if anyone wants to put that in their brain as "truth" than they obviously aren't intelligent enough/worth trying to convince anyways.

Thats the way to do it Justin !

Its so serious that the next day, Oakley sent out a memo to all store employees informing them about the misinformation and if question by a customer, make sure that you point out the obvious tech advances that truly do make O better. It heats me up as well, but at some point you have to sit back and go "i need popcorn to watch natural selection take place", meaning some people just dont care. Shame some will pay extra for bottled water, but not to protect thier eyes.

I think it's funny that the Today show did their "expose" the very next day after the WSJ article, and to go so far as to even quote it. Isn't that plagiarism? It makes you wonder how they were able to get their "expert", the guy from NYU on tape with testimony the next morning. It's like the article came out and whoever directs the Today show said "Go out and get as many pairs of sunglasses and get as many people wearing cheap sunglasses on camera so we can have this ready in a few hours." I know they didn't do research, we know they didn't do research. The most fun I've had regarding this article is pointing out how much of a dumbass people are that they believe everything they see on the news, and that creative editing can make the Pope seem like a devil worshiper.

With that said, I can see a select group of assholes going into an Oakley Store or a Sunglass Hut, and when someone asks if they need help, they go off about how they're getting ripped off.

Furthermore, my previous comments were in no way directed at anyone, or meant to offend. Personally, people are wonderful. Collectively, people make me sometimes pray for genocide.

Okay so now the WSJ has added a video to the article. Near the end the writer of the article says he was contacted my someone in the Air force who basically said he would thrust his eyes to no one but Oakley. He then just kind of chuckles and says good for you, but the rest of us will never be in a jet so the $20 sunglasses are fine. I want to punch this guy in the face.

I love how he contradicts himself in his own interview. Early on he says, companies try to tell you these glasses are worth the money because they frames are indestructible to which he reply's why do u need indestructible glasses. Then he later goes on to say why not buy the cheap ones because your just going to sit on them and break them...sounds like maybe the indestructible frame would have been nice...

I want to punch this guy in the face

and he won't be wearing Oakley's so sucks to be him

and he won't be wearing Oakley's so sucks to be him

Exactly, nothing like little shards of plastic in your eye to make you change your mind. I hardly ever wish someone harm but I hope this guy has his air bag go off in his face and shatter his Walgreens sunglasses in his face. Then I hope the doctor tells him, I am sorry sir but you have lost the sight in your right eye. If you had been wearing higher quality sunglasses like Oakley this might have been avoided.

Does anyone have, or can anyone get, this guy's contact info? I want to send him the picture of my buddy with a Hijinx scar from where his face hit the windshield, or my X-Squared that not only survived an air bag, but did not get scratched or marked in any way.

I've been avoiding this thread because each time I read or hear anything about it I get absolutely furious. Mother F-ers have NO idea what they're talking about. What a smug little SOB, I agree, I want him to be sitting in his backyard as someone is mowing his lawn and a projectile to get launched through his gas-station sunglasses and have them shatter all over his eyes. Then maybe we'll get a retraction statement. F F F, I'm on fire right now.

brett.arends@wsj.com

ask and you shall recieve...his contact info.

I had to "Defend" against this article the very day that it came out.

Good thing I have a couple of O-lab videos saved on my Iphone. If I only had the Galileo episode that showed the steam roller.

Unfortunately, only a small portion of the population can be swayed with truth. The others are just like a drowning man rejecting a life ring.

D

This can be said about anything that is a consumer good. What a waste of time.

Personally, people are wonderful. Collectively, people make me sometimes pray for genocide.

My new manifesto.


~Yukio

I was out of town during the heat of this argument ... so missed out on getting on the bandwagon. On a bit of a re-read tonight, and I don't get all that upset with some of the statements made.

I think we all hold Oakley up to a higher standard of optics than most other brands, particularly the designer brands that make you think of purses before shades. In a lot of ways, we mock the other brands for a lot of the same reasons the article states, particularly optical quality and impact resistance - two of Oakley's strong points.

The big kicker in my mind is that the article just bumdled the Oakley name along with the others ... simply because they fall under the LUX umbrella now. I'd have a more critical view of the whole thing if Oakley wasn't under LUX and was still put in with the group.

Unfortunately, only a small portion of the population can be swayed with truth. The others are just like a drowning man rejecting a life ring.

There's truth to that, but it also speaks to "buy what you like".

Other collectors in different segments would be up in arms about buying Oakley watches, t-shirts and shoes, since they may be seen as inferior products compared to the respective industry leaders. But it won't stop us from buying them, because there is love for the brand. I suppose this can be said for appreciation of other eyewear brands, even if inferior in one way or another.