Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[dtb]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Having been on the receiving end of some of them, I do. Not so much of the "yeah, go Paigow" variety (because, after all, who says that?), but a lot of the "anyone who sets foot in a bar is irresponsible and damaging her baby, you don't care about children's welfare, you shouldn't be allowed to have children, if you have a glass of wine your child will be born with three heads" variety.

OK, well then there's a third person (if I understand you correctly) and it wasn't just MM/GWNC. Maybe it is my misperception, because I'm in the MM/GWNC/BRC (fka DS) camp, but didn't post anything, not wanting to hear a bunch of ignorant claptrap about how a glass of wine induces instant fetal alcohol syndrome.

If I am misremembering, perhaps it's because I was IM'ing with several people about the subject, all of whom thought the scorn-heaped-upon-pregnant-woman-in-bar attitude was absurd.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wasn't this Spooky's point?

Yeah. It was. I just thought it was unfair to look at it in a vacuum. But you knew that already, didn't you?

TM

Bad_Rich_Chic wrote: "Now, this is a good reason more people should refuse to invite children to formal weddings."

Actually, I purposely did not invite them. However, they somehow assumed that anyone would be welcome at the ceremony. The kids did not come to the reception.

[Anne Elk]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Gum cracking must be stopped!!!!

I second the motion.

I also add the clipping of nails on the train to the list. I've seen numerous people do this, dead nail clippings (and all the underlying germs and dirt) flying who knows where. Thankfully I haven't seen anyone clip their toe nails. Yet.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by spookyfish
. . . .expect that it is one of the incidents of the job.

Just as "oops, it caved in - sorry" is no longer accepted as an "incidence of the job" for miners, (well, in theory), nor are lead fumes accepted for battery makers, neither is cig smoke for waitstaff (this last is my prediction, not a statement of current law.) Our system has pretty much discarded the idea that any hazard (that is reasonably addressable) can remain in a workplace. (No, I don't do WC.) So, I can't see smoking bars lasting much longer anywhere.

Here in MN, in a nearby suburb, they just went through this fight. Main issue (explicit issue, that is) from proponents was health of employees.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Anne Elk
I second the motion.

I also add the clipping of nails on the train to the list. I've seen numerous people do this, dead nail clippings (and all the underlying germs and dirt) flying who knows where. Thankfully I haven't seen anyone clip their toe nails. Yet.

You are my SP. I once gave a tourist on the metro the dirtiest glare I have ever seen in response to her clipping her nails in the seat behind me.

It was the most effective glaring at a stranger that I have ever performed, because she stopped, and actually looked rather cowed.

I'm sure she turned to her hubby and said "Can you believe that bitch?" after I got off the train, but who cares?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm not saying that there was no race issue involved, but I think the publicity had a lot to do with his being a celebrity and perhaps a feeling that he got off just because he could afford to hire fancy lawyers.

Agreed. That's why I said, "One of the main reasons why the trial was so huge was because a black man killed an attractive white woman."

TM

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Listen, I don't claim to have all the answers. I am not even sure what the acceptable solution to the problem Str8 described is. I just know that his way-out-in-left-field proposed solution of abstinence from drunken-ness and highness in the presence of beautiful aggressive women-ness has shaken me to my very core. I mean, what kind of monster could come up with something like that?

Well, there is always the Vegas exception.

[dtb]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Really? I don't think I've ever heard of the workers being the driving force behind such a thing, especially since it likely means they'll wind up with far fewer tips. Who drove the ban in NY?

spooky(I know, I know -- it's not the politics board)fish

It was a workplace safety issue, I guess just like in MN.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
They're all entirely nurture, of course. No one whose ever spent time around children has any illusions that any generous qualities or concern for others are inborn in them.

This is mostly just false. I'm hoping it's sarcasm.

I have two cousins who are siblings. One was a monster at birth and has continued to be, the other was an angel at birth and hasn't changed. Exact same parenting. Different people. She is the most selfish person I've ever met and always has been, he was born with a concern for how everyone around him felt. No one who's ever spent time around children has any illusions that they are not born with their own distinct personalities (which includes generous qualities and a concern for others or the lack thereof).

You can mold a child's personality and affect how s/he interacts with others, but every kid is different.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Maybe ONE of the reasons, but I don't think it was a main reason. If Joe Montana does the same thing (nationally televised Bronco chase and everything - and it would be nationally televised for Montana too), the trial would be huge as well. It would be huge b/c both are/were revered not just as football players, but as GREAT football players. And charasmatic football players to boot. Most people like(d) O.J. and Joe Cool regardless of their team preference (as opposed to someone like Pete Rose)...the possibility that either one could perform such an atrocious act seemed ludicrisp. I think people would be less shocked If Pete Rose was accused(I know I would).

That can be argued, but I don't think it would be as huge.

It was a defining moment in our history. A snapshot of race relations in this (or that) era. It split the country down the middle, mostly on color lines. Montana would be huge, but all of the extra, hot-button, race stuff made the OJ trial tremendous.

TM

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by lookingformarket
Some of us even travel with crayons and toys when we don't have our brats with us so that we can attempt to amuse brats that don't belong to us.

Some of us keep toys in our offices, generally for our own amusement but they also come in handy when brats belonging to partners come in.

One of the partners at my former firm had a three year old. She'd come in maybe three or four times a month, and she'd have a run of the place. She'd open office doors, barge in on telephone calls, and otherwise cause disruptions. I think that her presence in the office was some sort of passive agressive "see what I have to go through" from his wife, since the wife and the kid would usually show up together towards the end of the day and the wife would go off to do something other than manage her kid. The partner's secretary became an ad hoc baby sitter whenever the daughter would come into the office. No work could get done until the whole family was out of there. The kid knew that I keep toys in my office, so she'd make a beeline for my slinky or koosh balls or nerf footballs.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Not really. I omitted the middle part of your post for space reasons, but that said, I can't disagree with anything you wrote. The white people weeping in the streets after the verdict were, in my opinion, as idiotic as the black people rejoicing as if justice had been served.

The basis of my comment is in line with the two comments left, particularly how he turned his back on the black community until it was convenient for him to embrace them.

I'm not sure how you feel about his guilt or innocence, but come on, a white/yellow/black/red non-famous "poor" man who killed his wife would have been convicted on that evidence, absent the racist cops, and other factors, which OJ's defense team used to his advantage, as they should have.

I may be going out on a limb here, but my guess is now that all this has passed, OJ isn't spending a lot of time in the inner city, let alone associating with joe six-pack (black, white or otherwise) on the public golf courses. So, he relied on the black community when it suited him, and went back to being "just OJ", once the storm blew over.

I don't want to get into a big OJ thing, so I'll just say I pretty much agree with what you said, which is true.

TM

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Some of us keep toys in our offices, generally for our own amusement but they also come in handy when brats belonging to partners come in.

A coworker used to make fun of me for carrying several little action figures in my briefcase at all times.

Then, one day, we both got stuck on the runway at Detroit in the snow for four hours, with several kids sitting very close by.

He never made fun again.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just as "oops, it caved in - sorry" is no longer accepted as an "incidence of the job" for miners, (well, in theory), nor are lead fumes accepted for battery makers, neither is cig smoke for waitstaff (this last is my prediction, not a statement of current law.) Our system has pretty much discarded the idea that any hazard (that is reasonably addressable) can remain in a workplace. (No, I don't do WC.) So, I can't see smoking bars lasting much longer anywhere.

Here in MN, in a nearby suburb, they just went through this fight. Main issue (explicit issue, that is) from proponents was health of employees.

Around here, that was the main "reason" given, as well. I note that it was not given by the employees, however. Of the barstaff I or the Mr. talked to, many liked the idea of a smoke-free workplace, but many felt that it was outweighed by some combination of (i) having to "leave the building for smoke breaks on the street like some pathetic white-collar cubicle drone" (ii) likelihood of lower tips (apparently non-smokers are widely considered crappy tippers in bars, though if based on what I don't know) and (iii) likelihood of losing job if receipts decreased because non-smokers don't replace lost smoker volume, non-smokers having lots of other places to go and smokers having only really had bars.

(i) is certainly a reality, and (iii) is looking like a real concern here. (iii) is the reason a similar ban was rescinded in Toronto.