This was posted 8 years 5 months 7 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Happy Socks - up to 50% off Selected Styles, Free Delivery

140
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Some socks and briefs, 30% to 50% off with free delivery.

Free Tote bag with purchase of 6 items or more.
https://www.happysocks.com/au/freetotebag/

"Ends soon" - no idea what that means, exactly.

Related Stores

Happy Socks, Sweden
Happy Socks, Sweden

closed Comments

  • -3

    Happy Socks

    http://goo.gl/dvoBdQ

    • +5

      Are you accusing the op of being a sock puppet?

      • -4

        Read my post…

        • +3

          You're accusing the op of being a http goo.gl dvoBdQ? Seems a little harsh …

        • -2

          @Firefly:

          You're accusing the op

          You're making stuff up…

          You are the one making accusations…

          bluedufflecoat wears neither socks nor undies, just look at their profile pic…

        • @jv:

          Why are you trying to talk me into stalking bluedufflecoats's profile to see if they are wearing undies?

        • +2

          @jv:

          Firefly has not accused anyone of anything. Both posts were questions. The only one making false accusations is jv.

          jv has misquoted Firefly out of context to convey something untrue.

          It was so pleasant around here when jv was (presumably) on holidays after jv's ban.

        • @ripsnorter: Why was JV ban?

        • -1

          @ripsnorter: I'm not one to usually defend jv, but Firefly did imply jv was accusing the op of being a sock puppet.

          At no time did jv say anything about the op "being" the linked picture. He simply linked a picture of a sock (puppet) with a face, looking, arguably muddled. But having a face, makes sense as it can be happy. (Artistic interpretation of the image required)

          Firefly followed up a "question" with "Seems a little harsh" implying they were answering their own question, therefore stating that it was hash for jv to be saying the op was a sock puppet.

          Also, bluedufflecoat has obviously been a rather active member for several years. I don't think anyone would try accusing the OP of being a sockpuppet.

        • @Spectator:

          I didn't interpret "Seems a little harsh" the same way as you, but I understand your interpretation. If one was to argue the implication you interpreted then it is easily understandable that a person might question whether jv is inferring that the OP is a sockpuppet, based on jv's first comment (and without knowledge of bluedufflecoat's history).

          Posters throwing out deliberately vague statements which start up conversations based on clashing interpretations (and then jumping on the people that reply) isn't helpful to the community, which I guess is what contributed to jv's last ban.

        • +1

          @congngo:

          Trolling, from memory.

        • @Spectator:

          bluedufflecoat has obviously been a rather active member for several years

          I think I'm on ozb way too much. :D

        • @ripsnorter: @Spectator:

          Actually, I was just making a bad pun based on the nature of the deal (socks) and the fact that JV put up a picture of a puppet, and had no intention of making a serous accusation against anyone, so I am just as guilty as anyone of posts that could be interpreted in different ways.

        • @congngo:

          If they ban him for good, maybe he'll find something constructive to do with his life?

        • -1

          @congngo:

          Why was JV ban?

          Because of KFC's dodgy marketing…

        • -1

          @Ripped:

          maybe he'll find something constructive to do with his life?

          maybe I already do…

        • @ripsnorter:

          jv is inferring that the OP is a sockpuppet

          No I'm not… You're just deliberately interpreting it that way…

          You obviously didn't read the title of the post or my comment.

        • @jv:

          I actually said "it is easily understandable that a person might question whether jv is inferring that the OP is a sockpuppet, based on jv's first comment".

          Once again, jv trolling by misquoting me to deliberately present an untruth that doesn't exist. I didn't deliberately interpret anything any way. Don't misquote me to misrepresent me, jv.

          "You obviously didn't read my comment."

        • @ripsnorter: \

          Once again, jv trolling

          Once again, personal attacks…

        • @bluedufflecoat: There's no such thing buddy

        • @jv:

          Accurately describing your trolling is not an attack.

          Deliberately misquoting me to deliberately present an untruth that doesn't exist is a personal attack on me and I do not appreciate it.

  • +4

    Cheapest is $8.48. Not my idea of a bargain.

  • I often see these much cheaper at trade secret at Canberra outlet centre. I've often picked socks up, in multi packs, for around $3 a pair.

  • Not the cheapest I've seen, but these are fairly good quality socks.

  • Seems pretty expensive still

  • +1

    Not many at the lowest price $8.48. Definitely too expensive at $11+ for a pair.

  • Good quality socks, and the price is comparable to what you pay overseas. That being said, as another poster noted, if you have a Trade Secret store near you, it is worth checking them out for stock as well - I bought a 4-pack for $12 once.

  • The ones I got from Pussyfoot Socks weren't very good :-(

  • I've been very happy with my happy socks. Quality is quite good. And they do make me feel happy/funky. I know it's just in my head but that's where it counts the most. ;)

  • had quick look and not that many at 50% and the ones that are do not look as good as the others (obviously)

Login or Join to leave a comment