ImaTest1488314069

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Interesting. Well then, I suppose we should all go back to hating the stupid clumsy hag for daring to scald herself so badly and having the gall to seek compensation for her injuries. Also, we must hate her as well for allowing all the other low lifes to copy cat her. What a wicked person she must be announcing loopholes and setting precedents. She was old too, obviously not worth much at all. You seem a bit hostile, because I didn't say any of that whatsoever. Didn't even imply it, or come close. That would be another poster. She did have some fault in the matter, as did the company for serving a beverage at that high of a temp to begin with. Both were negligent to some degree. I didn't say anyone should hate her. I didn't call her names either, nor would I. I also said she should be given something for her pain and suffering-just not what she did get. Entirely her fault others used the same kind of ignorance with regards to the law, in order to get compensated for preventable acts? No, it's not. I didn't say that. I said the fact that the judicial system allowed a ruling that said the company broke a law(which did NOT exist at the time) is what contributed to opening the floodgates for this sort of lawsuit. Would it have happened eventually anyway? Probably. Humans seem really sue happy when they feel they've been wronged. But I won't pretend like her case did not have any sort of effect on some of the lawsuits we've seen(the world over at that, not just the US).

Charolotte Caxton wrote: solstyse wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: No, because the damage inflicted was not because of the spilling but because it was dangerously and unnecessarily hot. If she had ordered molten lava and accidentally spilled it on herself, then everyone could laugh at her for being an idiot. Coffee should not be so hot that it can cause third degree burns. Imagine if she had tried to drink it? Are you saying that if she had not spilled it the burns would still be there? No, I am saying that if the coffee had not been so dangerously hot it would not have burned her as badly as it did when she spilled it onto herself. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, but..yes it would have. I'll explain why...(and this negates the information the "law" has in place to ensure a hot product is not too hot-as they still are). If the law were truly intended to make something, like hot beverages, safer, it wouldn't have the limit still set as high as it actually is. It's still well above the temp that can cause significant damage. An approximate one-second exposure to 160° F water will result in third degree burns Where the water is 130° F, an approximate half-minute exposure will result in third degree burns. This is the reason that the Consumer Product Safety Commission suggests that water heaters be set to a maximum temperature of 120° F, even though an approximate ten minute expsoure to water heated to this temperature can result in third degree burns. A safe temperature for hot water is 110° F, which exposure to results in third degree burns in approximately ten hours.3 Even though this is a 'relatively-safe' temperature, exposure to water set at 110° F is painful; the human pain threshold is around 106-108° F. So, spilling your coffee on yourself, at most temps coffee gets to, can still very easily cause major problems, both internally and externally. Personally I'm not so sure I believe the % they say she had severe burns on. Though I've seen the pictures and don't doubt for a moment she was very, very hurt. The % of skin it included, imo, was inflated.(just my opinion though). The biggest reason why her injuries were considered the degree they were, is because it included the perinium. That alone makes ANY burn automatically go from minor, skipping over moderate and heading straight to major. Age, also plays a factor, as well as any underlying health issues. All of which will also increase healing time and the need for more intense treatment. Like I said, I dont doubt her injuries, at all. I dout the exact severity. I've had a burn similar to what happened to her(different cause, though still my fault) and it was NOT considered as severe, because of the area covered, my age, and the absence of underlying health concerns. Some burns can look much, much, much worse than they actually are too. Mine looked horrendous, for a long time too. I agree that her monetary compensation was over the top. Not that she deserved nothing, of course. But despite the coffee being held at the temp is was, she still is the primary cause for the burn. Had the coffee been at 140, it still would have burned her having poured the whole thing on herself. The cotton fabric not only acted as an insulator but also spread the luquid further-causing even more burn. Cotton has a tendancy to do that sort of thing. Taking too long to remove that clothing, would also contribute to how severe the burn can be. Again, not saying all her fault, not by a long shot. I also agree that the company shouldn't be sued for breaking a law that did not exist at the time. That was just poor judgment on the judicial system. Such restroactive things do not happen with most other areas of the law. You could probably think of a million instances that would have been illegal if they'd been committed before the laws took place. But, in most cases, you can't implement punishment for breaking a law that was not in place. Punishment for the incident happening at all, sure. But the "it was/is unlawful" part shouldn't come into play until the law actually is. Both were at some degree of fault and the fact that this was not recognized by the judicial system is what lead to the opening of the floodgates for other similar lawsuits. There is absolutely no denying that, truthfully. Loopholes, once annouced(or other ways of "getting around, generally speaking) will spread like wildfire.

Oh I have no doubt something like that would have a legitimate use whatsoever. I doubt whether or not most would use it for that, lol. Most people who need something posted to several groups tend to either hire individuals who do it for them. You could always look for something like that too. Not sure what average cost for something like that is though. I don't think a product like you've described actually exists. If it did it would come under heavy scrutiny and I'm sure people here would already be complaining about it's misuse.

I've never seen one and to be honest though I wouldn't be surprised it if exists, I would never tell anyone they should use one. I'd advise the exact opposite. Would be too easily misused and more likely to be used as a griefing tool than for it's less instrusive and annoying purpose. So it would most likely garner anyone using it the tag of griefer, whether well deserved or not. I think sl has enough of those as it is.

Have you looked on the marketplace for a mailbox or drop box? I know several of these exist that work just as you're asking this one to, and some of them are even free(a couple I believe are open source, so you can even look at the script to see how it does what it does..always a plus). It might just save you a step or two, is all. Good luck with your search!

leliel Mirihi wrote: ImaTest wrote: Call me confused-it certainly wouldn't be the first time-but why do people care so much about where others are looking? If you went to a club with your girlfriend and spent the whole night staring at some other woman do you think she'd care? Would you blame her for being mad about it? Stop thinking about it in terms of sl and the issue becomes a lot more clear. The problem isn't the people, it's the option. People turn this option on and think it's telling them something it's not, then they have a perfectly natural reaction to this misinterpretation. That's why I call it obscure, because most people have no idea what this option is showing them or how to interpret the info it's giving them. If her first reaction is anger, yes I would blame her. I'd blame a guy whose first reaction is anger too. In any sort of relationship communication could, and should, prevent anger from being felt to begin with. I'd expect a girl I was with, if she saw me looking at someone else, to ask me why I am doing it. And yes, it does happen, to guys and girls. I'd answer truthfully. Now if my answer were I thought the chick was hot or I just kept staring, I'd expect my gf to get pissed. I'd also probably expect a thwap upside the head, if not worse. That would then be a reasonable reaction. Anger isn't a reasonable first reaction to something like this, in my opinion. Whether it's rl or sl. Everyone has insecurities and there is nothing wrong with it. It is that insecurity that makes our innards twinge when we see someone we are with looking at another and wondering why. How we deal with our curiosity about it does matter though. Both in rl and in sl, I feel the same on the matter. Yes the setting can be obscure to some, important to others and still yet be a nuisance to even more-just like any other of the thousands of settings we have available. Yes it can be problematic when we don't understand how something works. It's still our responsibility to communicate properly with one another. We can't lay the blame of the anger a person feels when their dance partner's eyes seem to stray on the option being available. It seems a bit silly to say it's the option's fault. Of course the information about the option isn't as widely available as it should be, that much I agree on, for sure. Lots of things about various settings aren't well documented to the general public. Our reactions are still our own reactions. If I react poorly to something, I'm not going to blame it on the something. I'll blame it on my misunderstanding, misinterpretation or even just myself, before I'd blame it on the something. For some reason that last part makes much more sense in my head than I think it may in print. I could be explaining it very poorly.

Call me confused-it certainly wouldn't be the first time-but why do people care so much about where others are looking? Does it really matter what the setting is actually being used for, when it's a setting someone has to willingly turn on? Does every setting really have to posess some important ability, in order to be considered a good setting to have? And if that's the case, we've got a crap ton of settings that are really, really obscure. I'm surprised more don't complain about their existance. With so many other settings and problems all viewers have that are opt out rather than opt in, and things even out of our control we can't turn off or on as needed...why on earth do people make a big deal out of a setting they willingly turned on. It's not like it's a setting that jumps up and bites us in the ass upon login. We have to knowingly and intentionally turn it on. Just me rambling, I guess. Was chatting with a friend whose girl went off on him for looking at the hostess in a club last week and she's apparently still unhappy with him about it. Me being the awesome friend I am, laughed. Not at his plight, but at the simple fact that his girl is a drama llama and a prime example of what I said earlier. People's own insecurities is what makes this setting such a "bad" thing, or "obscure" if some want to call it that(I don't, in either instance). It has nothing to do with the setting itself or what it can or cannot do. It has everything to do with the individual using it. Don't want to know your guy, girl, or whatever, is looking at someone else....don't turn it on. Problem solved.

Since it's an option people can shut off, and pretty easily, I don't see much need to get rid of it entirely. It's not an option that comes as already on right out ot the box. It's an opt in option. But I do have to admit that people, quite a few, are drama llamas when it comes to this option. They get very butthurt when others are looking at them, or those they are with are looking at others. It's not even always the case, it just appears that way, and is enough to set some people off. No I am not saying anyone who dislikes the feature is a drama llama, just that some are, or can behave like it. Such as people who get angry or upset with their partner or someone they are with at the time, for daring to "look" at someone. That's creating a conflict where one shouldn't exist, communication should **bleep** it in the butt, but as we all know, it doesn't always. Personally I say if it's not a feature you like, just don't turn it on. Like the many other settings that exist, we've all got options. There are probably a bunch of different settings that mean little to nothing to us, might even be a nuisance, but some other folks might enjoy. I don't think the number of people who enjoy it should matter, when it's something we can so easily opt out of. You can't be bothered by something you never turn on. Just my take though.

I think using both options, if you can, is ideal for getting the most bang for your buck. However, not everyone can, or at least not everyone chooses. Neither way is right or wrong. There is no right or wrong. I don't much care for shopping inworld myself, but then I never did. Tons of reasons as to why, but they're really irrelevant as none is an all-inclusive issue. I really like MP, just as much as I loved Slex, Xstreet, Onrez, etc... They provide(d) a service many desire. That's why they exist. They will not kill off all inworld commerce. It just won't happen. They may help cut it down in size here and there, yes, but that happens in all markets in rl as well. It is inevitable. There will still always be a "physical" presence of commerce(in rl that would be brick and mortar, in sl inworld locations). People once said Slex and then subsequently Xstreet would kill off inworld commerce too. Oddly, or not, not many said it about Onrez lol. Some people still have this opinion. I don't agree with it, but there's not much one could say or do to convince them otherwise. It is what it is. I don't find shopping on MP to be some cold, empty, experience. Just as much as I don't find shopping inworld to be this happy, fully of life, feeling filled experience. It depends entirely on the merchant. I don't just shop on MP for convenience sake, though it's pretty high up there on my list. I like being able to compare what it is I am looking for. MP makes this so much easier than inworld. People don't often pay much attention to where they save LMs at, for their location. This is a huge issue, coupled with how badly search can perform, and you've created the beginnings of a recipe for "I hate shopping inworld". Then you have how poorly some locations are placed, or built. You have in the added annoyances(little as they may seem) of some upon-landing scripted things going on(greeters, lm giver, blue menus out the wazoo) If the shopping inworld is made to be nearly as, if not fully as, convenient as shopping on MP, you won't have a problem getting both inworld and MP sales. If you make one more or less, though, you will likely find your sales come from that one more than the other. If that makes any sense. But it is entirely possible to make both enjoyable and cater to those who would prefer one option over the other. I had both at one time. There were times when Slex/Xstreet/MP sales flourished while inworld diminished. Then there were times it did the opposite. Sometimes there wasn't much I could do to prevent it. Sometimes there was though. I took critiques from shoppers and even just discussions on the matter from various forums into consideration. Whether or not I agreed with them, I listened, I read, I watched. Sometimes, as a shop owner, you can't, or don't, feel the experience if your own place the same way someone with no vested interest does. It helps to at least consider feedback from others, especially shoppers. Merchants can, often, be the worst kind of shopper. That's not me putting them down, of course. Our critiques are just different than that of someone who doesn't, never has and may never own a business in sl. Sometimes merchants are a little more forgiving on the "how to make this an ideal experience for my customers" front. Sometimes we're more aggressive towards those who don't do things our way. But in most, we're not very objective, even when we try to be. We have a level of experience others do not and it often lends to our opinion. Not saying it is right or wrong, though. TL;DR... I like both options, and I think the merchants who are able to utilize both and take full advantage of all they offer, are often in a much better position than those who cannot. Neither option is right, wrong, or even indifferent. It's an individual experience, depending on both customer and merchant. No way around that. Neither option will kill off the other anytime soon.

A breedable ought to take more than a month or so. If you're truly dedicated to the project and not intending it to just be a short lived one(I am assuming here, probably not a good idea, but I am) you are going to need a scripter for much more than a month. A scripter can be worth their weight in gold ten times over when it comes to this sort of project. Anyone who comes to you willing to put forth a month's worth of work, even if hard dedicated work, is not someone I'd be looking for, for a product like this, if I were you. Even being fully dedicated, that is just not enough time. Your customers are going to want more than a month's worth of service from you, again I am assuming and probably shouldn't. Breedables are typically ever changing, needing updates, needing fixes, needing enhancements, needing constant communication from all angles, that's not even going into the oops mishaps that updates or changes the lab performs that may or may not break how things function.....it's hefty work. Not that I am telling you what to do of course, just offering advice. If you're expecting that a scripter will do the base work for this month or say, laying ground work for the end product but not sticking around for it's entire lifetime, you might want to state that up front. I know several scripters, including a few who have worked on breedables. I can't imagine any of them would just sign off after a month and pass the torch on to you(or anyone) with their hard work attached. They'd want to be in it for the long haul, the duration of the product line, or project. Not just in it until it's stable and ready for the market. Though I am sure those people exist. If it's what you're needing, make sure people know that. They can better make an informed decision without wasting your, or their, time. Best of luck to you. It's always interesting to see new breedables on the grid. Hasn't been one yet that I didn't at least take a gander at for a bit.

Most of what you said applies to a great deal of clubs in sl these days. Few people know about it, because they don't know staff members. Even less people know staff members' alt accounts. I happen to know a lot of the staff at one particular venue that seems rather popular and has a pretty high traffic. What I also know is that at any given time at least 50% of the attendee count(often higher), usually pretty busy place, is made up of staff and staff alt accounts. For a while, it was a "highly suggested" point(just shy of requirement) that staff use any alts they have and park them at the venue to help increase traffic. The only reason I know this is because I once worked for them and got to know staff alts over time. They're not very careful at hiding it, much like most places, lol. I'm not saying whether or not I feel it's right or wrong, as it doesn't much matter, being my opinion and all. Just saying this is not a new practice by any stretch. It happens a lot more places than people think. Often times though, people don't really care. I'm willing to bet a majority of people don't care. As long as they feel like they're having fun. I don't particularly like Muddy's, mostly because the staff, but not because they are filling the floor leaving less room for attendees. They just don't behave in a manner I enjoy and leave way too much to be desired for such a small place. Which is something I do not understand. They also don't always follow the pg rules, which I find sad. You can't enforce rules you're not going to follow. The club itself is very nice, and most of the non-staff attendees are quite nice. The staff, eh, they need a bit more training, imo. But, that's neither here nor there I suppose. As with your case, any comments made go largely ignored. One would think posting a review on a place that is honest, albeit perhaps not entirely positive, is a good thing. Venue owners can learn a lot from people willing to give an actual review, even if they can't pretend it's all rainbows and sunshine. So I would hope people don't get flack of any sort for such reviews. Then again, I know they will. Because people don't generally want to be told they're doing something wrong, or could be doing better. Human flaw I suppose. I agree Muddy's has definitely seen much better days. There isn't as much fun to be had as there could be, and once was. It would do someone well to go there with fresh eyes and experience it from the perspective of someone not tied to it in any manner. Hard to be objective when you're looking at others' reviews of your "baby".

1. Do you have shadows turned on in your viewer? If so what do you think of the shadows that your viewer displays in SL? Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. It depends entirely on where I am and what I am doing. I don't exactly have the most amazing pc in the world at all times(I use multiple machines and could be on any one of them at any given moment). I play it by ear. 2. If you were to buy a tree or chair today, would you want or expect a ground shadow texture (on a prim/mesh) to be included? In most cases, yes. Though the ability to remove it if I so choose is also something I'd want. I tend to prefer mod items anyway. On a related note..As a builder I would not exclude a (rather large imo) portion of the userbase by eliminating all prim shadows and making them rely entirely on viewer shadows if I wanted my item to have a shadow or thought it needed one. It's just a bad idea, to me. Though other builders are obviously free to do whatever they like, I see no point in not taking advantage of the system capabilities(or otherwise) of the userbase whenever possible. For instance if a seller did not want the item to be mod, they could include one with a built in shadow and one without. It just seems to be a smart business decision with such a varied audience. 3. What is your opinion about textured shadowing inside buildings? For example should the shadows from the window frames be built into the floor texture or do you think the viewer should be rendering all shadows nowadays? I have mixed feelings. Sometimes it looks fabulous under just about any lighting. Sometimes it looks fabulous under most lighting. Sometimes only under some. Then we have the cases where it just looks bad no matter what. So again, this is situational for me. 4 Any other opinions or issues you have with shadowing on textures or shadows rendered by your viewer? I think they both have their place and as I said, I believe merchants who use both to their advantage are in a better position than those who choose only one or the other. That's just my personal opinion of course.

Carl Thibodeaux wrote: I have heard you gotta keep them G rated.. But lately i seen alot of nudity and curse words all over them. Is there still rules regarding profiles? Or you can post whatever you want on them? http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Profiles/ta-p/1101055 And on the page, a smidge above the middle, it says... Keep it suitable for everyone Important: Content in profiles must be General, and must obey the Terms of Service and Community Standards

I don't think anyone missed that point, since several discussed it. I haven't seen anyone yet say rude behavior ought to be tolerated. I disagree that the OP had only one point to make, the possibly rude way a staff member made contact. Even if it was the intention to only make one, more than one point was addressed, and discussed. I think a lot can be learned discussing these kinds of things and how others would handle them.

solstyse wrote: I'd say tht a fair way to handle it would have been fort the employee to give a proper introduction, and point out that there is a rule in the NC about not wearing tails. Then give a period of ten minutes to comply, or two local posts, whichever happens sooner before ejecting. Maybe that is how it went. We only have one side of the story. But from what I read, it seems like almost no time was given. Ten minutes is a ridiculously long time frame when the person is right there(so not afk) and it takes less than a minute to detach. There is also more than one way to detach something, so at least we have options if one way isn't working. They're perfectly capable of doing it much faster than that, even on a laggy machine. If not possible-because things happen-, the patron ought to leave anyway, so they can comply and return. They shouldn't wait around for an eject. or they could simply tell the staff member they are trying to comly so they know. I also don't believe staff has to always introduce themselves as staff. Sure they can, and probably a decent amount do. But I don't think it's necessary. Not when staff has to wear a tag(and as already pointed out, wouldn't have been able to eject without wearing said tag). As for warnings in local, I don't think most clubs want their staff doing that. It's singling someone out, whether their actions(the patron's) are intentional or not. That sort of singling out usually backfires and makes people feel worse. So I would never suggest a staff member ought to issue warnings of any sort in local unless they absolutely must. It would be a last resort for me. I am guessing, also because we only have one side, that there was actually time to comply, or the OP would not have mentioned not being able to stop a current conversation to "bend to the staff's needs". It wouldn't make much sense to say that unless you were already given a few minutes and the staff member seemed impatient. I don't think staff would be impatient within the first minute or so. Though, that's always a possibility too, it seems less likely in this scenario as it was presented. Then again as with anything there are always two sides and the truth probably sits dead center between them. I won't discount the possibility that both people were rude to some degree in this case. I still stand by what I said earlier in the thread about the fact that no one ought to be being rude to patrons of a venue and there are always better ways at handling something. But I guess I wanted to add that patrons are also held to that standard by me. It's rude to suggest your converations, or whatever else it is you are doing, take priority over following rules and everyone else in the venue. I'm not really certain why that tidbit of the OP is sticking out to me the way it is, but it is. Maybe coupled with the whole "we finance your club" mentality and the "I spend a lot of money in sl" mentality, it just comes across badly to me. It's probably just my poor interpretation of what was meant. At least I hope it is. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about something, lol.

I agree with 95% of what you said, except for these two points. (my replies in bold) "I know its your rules your club but without the money we as club goers spend there is no club." This is false for a great many clubs. Few clubs can, and do, rely on the payment from visitors to keep going, very few. They are open because the owners front the dough. Yes a lot do ask for donations. Most never get even what anyone would consider a drop in the bucket, definitely nowhere near an actual tier cost for the month. Even some of the most heavily visited and always busy clubs don't get squat in "donations". So you actually have this one a bit backwards. Without the owner fronting up money for that place(including ALL costs), you wouldn't have a club to visit. Most club goers do not donate to clubs. I'd say roughly(estimate on my part, I may be being very generous on my estimate-and probably am) half will ever actually donate a linden to the club itself. Tips to djs, performers, hosts and such aren't considered in that when they don't split that with the venue-and most don't. So it really is not the club goers that financially keep a place going. They may be what the owner needs as far as physical presence to have the desire to keep a club going, but they most certainly do not financially support it much less keep it afloat. Often times too the ones you see with donation/tip jars out, have staff that put money in there. More times than not, that's the case. "Might want to remind the staff to interpret the rules with a grain of salt and to treat people with respect...or they may not have a job or you may not have a SIM." This sort of goes hand in hand with the above. Again yes patrons are needed, but without the club owner and staff, you woudn't have somewhere to visit, either, lol. Both are a necessity for a good club. However it's the first part of this one that strikes me odd. Why would the staff interpret the rules with a grain of salt? Hopefully I am just misunderstanding you. Because I personally feel that rules are rules are rules. Staff know them, and understand them. They MUST abide by them and enforce them as written, not as they so choose. Unless of course given permission to enforce at their own discretion, but in these days most club owners no longer offer that to staff. Patrons take advantage of it too often. It is a strict "know the rules, understand the rules, follow the rules and enforce the rules... or find a new job" way of thinking. I won't judge whether it's right or wrong, because I believe land owners, club owners, whatever, have a right to set forth whatever rules they want. Providing they stay within TOS. So I would NOT want to go to a club where the staff was able to enforce rules at will, and not enforce others at will. I've seen what happens in that case. And those places, rarely last long. That said I don't believe any staff member anywhere ought to be rude to people, ever. Even if patrons give them cause to be(not that you did). I do believe offering ample time to make changes if you're wearing something you shouldn't, or breaking some other rule you need to be warned about ought to be afforded whenever possible. I also know sometimes, it's not possible. I do wonder how long you had from the time you read the notecard and missed the "no tails" policy before you were warned. But I am guessing you don't think that part matters-so we'll agree to disagree on that. Most places that give you rules either in notecard or signage ask you to read either before, or upon entering. They do that so that they CAN enforce the rules from the word go. Now if it were me, I'd offer a little more time. I would not have ejected right away. But I still would have told you from the moment you walked in, or the moment you started taking too long to follow the rules, tails are not permitted. I would also likely send you a copy of the rules. Because you were expected to read them, and I would only be able to guess you hadn't, if you were still not abiding by them after a few minutes of being there. That doesn't make you a bad person, or give me room to be rude. But I would certainly be strict with my enforcement of the rules. It does give me room to eject at will, if my boss says I am supposed to. That's another thing too, staff have rules as well. Things they have to do, must absolutely do, if rules are broken. There isn't always much wiggle room for them. Still no need to be rude. But even an eject after waiting ample time for someone to read and follow rules, will be seen as rude by some people. I'm not sure why you mentioned spending a lot of money on your av. It's irrelevant to the topic. Actually, even if you donated a lot of money to this venue, it would be irrelevant. I also have to say you most certainly can drop a conversation to follow the rules of a venue. If you choose not to, you have absolutely no cause for complaint. Your conversation partner can wait the few seconds it will take you to detach a tail. I can't imagine anyone you'd be speaking to at that moment would take issue with it. In fact they may not even notice you had taken a few seconds away from the conversation to do so. Again, so it doesn't come across as if I am being mean, because I am not, just adding another perspective... I don't believe any staff member ought to ever be rude to a patron. There are ways to handle things and I wouldn't have likely handled it the way this person did. You would have at least gotten a hi from me. I might or might not have identified myself as staff, because I'd likely have a tag on that says I am(and if you don't have tags showing, that is not their fault). But I would have greeted you first. If you'd been there for some time, or waited more than a couple minutes after I asked you to remove(and I would ASK not demand) and/or told me you didn't have a few seconds to remove your tail, I would have ejected you too. I would have told you to please come back when you're ready to comply with the rules, or at least not so busy that you could take the time to read them. It wouldn't be rude in the least. I'd simply be doing my job. It's not always what we say, but also how. So that would beimportant for me as well. Even if i had to be strict as hell, I'd do my best to be polite as I could when doing it.

Haha, I'm a naughty child. Okie dokie then.(yes I know drake didn't say it I too get replies in email) My mama always taught me if I choose to behave like an ass I can't be offended when I am seen and treated like one. My mama's a smart woman

Sephina Frostbite wrote: Because I hadn't slept in days so I wasn't thinking correctly as well as sheer silliness. You don't ever have those moments? Honestly you could be nicer. It was a silly thought. They made such a big deal about this gift and then to find out it's ten linden.. It's just sad. Hope your day is great despite your nasty mood. That wasn't nasty, mean, or rude. it was an honest question. Of course everyone has moments of "duh" quality. I was honesty curious why you thought they would give away $10. I disagree with you that 10 lindens is a sad gift, but to each their own. My day was fabulous actually. I spent a portion of it at the children's hospital not far from here with my son making hand puppets with other kids from his therapy group while we waited for his class. Sorry to burst your bubble but there was no nasty mood here at all. There rarely is. I'm a pretty happy go lucky guy.

Sephina Frostbite wrote: Yeah I thought I did to but then I realized it was 10 LINDENS not the $10 dollars I thought it was going to be. Sorry hun I know your disappointment. Why did you think it would be $10? Do you really think any company would randomly hand out $10 to tens of thousands of people worldwide just for Valentine's day? I don't see most companies giving anything away, much less actual money. It's not even that big of a holiday, or even a holiday at all, to most around the world.

I think I'd have to say my favorite pieces of, well anything, would be nature made. Don't get me wrong I do love man made architecture. It can be exquisite, beautiful and very thought provoking. But few man made anything will leave me breathless the way nature does. Just stunning. I'm a sucker for natural beauty. I'll have to find some links of my favorite photos, not sure I have them saved on this pc.

Ermionia wrote: We will investigate what I took to find out what kind of dress? Well, i wrote on flickr, where I saw this image - in response to the silence, I wrote her a IM and notecard in SL - nothing. What will be further guidance, Captain? Oh yeah, I tried to find similar images in Google images. No-thing. Ppl, plz help) Does anyone else. :catsurprised: I've seen it before, but your rude replies are going to keep people from wanting to help you at all. No need to be a jerk, it is you that is asking for help after all. Even if I did find the creator, I probably wouldn't tell you. Childish? Yep. So are your replies. Good luck with your search.

TDD123 wrote: ImaTest wrote: If you're unhappy with your $10L I'm more than happy to give it a home. It will be loved and cherished beyond measure, I promise. I see a lot more disdain on the forums than I do in-world. Why does everything always have to come down to "but you could have done more", "I deserve more", "you oweme" and such? Can't a gesture ever be just a kind gesture without all that baggage? "You paid ImaTest L$10." Given with the same disdain I received it with. You owe me nothing. I owe LL nothing. You can shut up now. Remember your promise. Well thank you sir. I will cherish it always, as promised.

Marcusgay Lefevre wrote: what a joke Seriously... if someone gives you 10$ or 10€ as Valentines gift wouldn`t you think that person is not very interested in showing you, how much they appreciate you? Heh, come on..., least a teddy or some flowers would have done it.... but 10L$ thats less than...wait..., thats less than nothing *facedesks about unromantic Lindens* I'd be grateful they gave me anything at all. Then again I don't put an enormous value on the tangibles in life.

I didn't get the $10L, because I couldn't log in. If you're unhappy with your $10L I'm more than happy to give it a home. It will be loved and cherished beyond measure, I promise. I don't think a gesture of any sort ought to be looked at with such disdain. Not when it's a gift just randomly given. This isn't an "I'm sorry we flubed something up again" payment. It was something random, something unexpected, and something welcome by most that I can see in-world. Those who got it of course. I see a lot more disdain on the forums than I do in-world. That's probably a good thing. My poor sap of a heart can't take such ungrateful attitudes all the time. I'm too much of a softy sometimes. When my son was 15 he came into a large sum of money. He showered his friends with gifts galore. He got himself all kinds of new things he wanted for once, not needed. He had plenty leftover even after placing a lot into savings. I came inside after doing yardwork to find a $1 pack of spoons on the counter. With them sat a note "here ya go" signed my son. Hmmm. All the things he bought, all the money he had, and the only thing he gave me was a pack of spoons. I could have been mad. I could have said "what about me". I could have been disappointed at the measily $1 he spent on me. I was none of the above. I chuckled, removing the paper wrapper from the $1 pack of spoons, washing them and placing them in the drawer. He remembered my complaints about not having enough spoons. He listened to me constantly, and sometimes angrily voice the fact that our spoons seemingly disappeared on a regular basis. Now there are a lot of things I could have used more than spoons, lots. But I was happy with my spoons. Not because it was all he could afford, surely he could afford more. Not because it was a gift from the heart, because even he will tell you it wasn't a gift from the heart at all. It was something he grabbed on a whime while getting cat litter at a local Family Dollar. He got me something I needed, even if I didn't want it. So if I had gotten that $10l, I would look at it as something I needed. Perhaps even if I didn't think I needed it. If I really didn't want it, there would be nothing preventing me from sending it off to someone who did. I just don't see much point in looking at everything so sideways and backwards. Why does everything always have to come down to "but you could have done more", "I deserve more", "you owe me" and such? Can't a gesture ever be just a kind gesture without all that baggage? eta: and yes I did check, no $10L, perhaps it's still on it's way to me.

Spica Inventor wrote: I don't understand the spam complaint. If you don't use adjectives for search words, why should it bother you, and how are you being spammed if others do? Your question doesn't make much sense. It's spam because the lab says it's spam, Not because I or any other merchant says it's spam. They've pre-defined that for us. Although they're not always clear on every aspect, this one isn't as vague as a lot of other areas, though could use a little bit more clarity. Am I(generic I) being harmed by another merchant breaking the guidelines and using keywords they're not supposed to? No, probably not-if I had items on the mp at the moment. Does that mean they should be allowed to do it anyway? I think the answer is clear, but..No. Rules are rules-even when we don't agree with them. We can disagree with them all we want, but to be a merchant, we still have to follow them. Until such a time as they change, assuming they ever do. Sometimes I get the impression that many peeps come here just to be argumentative. ;-) Probably true, but even if that were the case for most(it's not), it never hurts to read another person's opinion. Even if we wholeheartedly believe they are completely wrong. Considering how many people read and never post, one can learn a lot from the forums. People can learn exactly what not to do from reading them, just as often as they can learn what to do. Some of the following (adjectives) I use all the time for word searches on the SL Marketplace, and apparently so do many others.... All the colors, bloody, bright, clear, crazy, dangerous, mystical, mysterious, dark/light, dead, enchanting, meditative, enchanted, evil/good, gleaming, grotesque, shiny, sparkling, vast, wicked, opalescent, translucent, transparent, arcane, to name just a few. I'll try to answer as best I can. My answers above are bolded. If those keywords directly describe your item, there's nothing wrong with using them. Although some of those words are extremely obscure and I can't imagine many people search for them, as long as you're within the guidelines you can use whatever words you want. I'm not sure how effective they'd be for most. Just because people use them doesn't mean they're effective. I don't think I'd waste space using words people will rarely, if ever, actually use to search. But to each their own on that one. This is probably why a previous poster thought I meant those types of words when I said be specifically descriptive, I can see why they'd think it was a bad idea if this is what they thought I was saying. It's not what I meant, however. When you start throwing in words that don't describe your actual item directly, you're going to lose page views. Lost page views=lost potential revenue. Words that describe the general type of item may very well prove to be inefficient more often than not. Which again, for someone new, can be detrimental. I know many people believe that being a merchant, especially a new one, and expecting to really make anything significant of it, is a lost cause. I just don't share that opinion. Then again I tend to put myself completely and utterly into everything I do. So that's where my advice comes from, and is directed towards. Someone who is serious about making their business work and isn't just looking for a hobby of sorts. It's probably why I take some things more serious than others might. People often, and you can search the mp yourself to see this, use adjectives that describe their other products in the keywords too. Which directly violates the guidelines, no grey area there. They do it because they believe it will get them more page views. For some people, for a short time, it might, but it's going to backfire at some point and it will likely never garner actual sales. This is probably why people who have been merchants for a while choose their keywords carefully and more often than not, they're more specifically descriptive and not generically descriptive. You do have a limited number of characters too, so that will also have an impact on what you can and cannot, or should and should not, say.