I would say substance, and I think most people would say substance. But if you look around you, it’s obviously style.
They are not mutually exclusive, but often one is sacrificed for the development of the other.
I have neither
How ethereal.
For what?
Passingby on the street: style.
Living next door: substance.
Style EVERY time, Daddyo. Leave substance for the geeks.
Substance.
I don’t even know what style is. 
[quote=“Dr. McCoy”]I would say substance, and I think most people would say substance. But if you look around you, it’s obviously style.
They are not mutually exclusive, but often one is sacrificed for the development of the other.[/quote]
Your post is too vague. Please substantiate your comments.
Style comes and goes. Substance is lifelong.
useless style is pointless: see Yamaha V max for a good example (unless you really LIKE tractors), or style with very poor substance: Gloria Jean’s or even Buttfcks’s caramel flavoured coffee etc. (urgh).
Now, the Fonz: style AND substance. cool.
Is this like skill vs luck?
Wrong. It’s fashion that comes and goes, and fashion has very little to do with style. Style is timeless – like an old V12 e-type Jag or a nice Vivienne Westwood alpaca overcoat.
I’d agree with that. For example look at this photo of Louise Brooks (star of Pandora’s Box)
picture taken in or around 1928.
That look is certainly timeless.
Substance goes a hell of a lot faster.
Style brings em in, substance keeps them coming back for more.
Style without substance is a one hit wonder.
Substance without style is a great idea that never goes anywhere.
No style and no substance is modern art.