Jump to content

Tolya Ugajin

Resident
  • Posts

    4,752
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tolya Ugajin

  1. 2 minutes ago, Marianne Little said:

    Disagreement is not targeting. Or posting laugh reactions to posts. It is an ignore function, but it is not a law that says you should ignore posters you disagree with. A discussion forum is for discussions. To demand you shut up if you don't agree = North Korea.

    Nah, that's a typical college campus these days. In North Korea, people who disagree with the Dear Leader are simply shot - far more efficient and effective, as dead people rarely continue to argue.

    • Like 2
    • Haha 2
  2. 6 hours ago, Ashlyn Voir said:

    I see it a lot in these forums and I think it needs to be addressed. There’s a lot of biased behavior and targeting towards users going on here, and no one really talks about it. When one person is already alienated and made to feel they can’t post on a PUBLIC forum, mind you. That’s what the ignore feature is for, but many users here get away with completely targeting people in order to get them into trouble. 

    Think of the Forum as a everyone hanging out in a bar and talking (and, at least in my case under lockdown, probably drinking).  You don't necessarily hear everything every person says, but there are some people you likely pay more attention to than others.  People tend to stand in groups based on friendships, likes, etc. but people still can talk between groups or yell across the bar.

    Now, imagine any topic of conversation being spoken about loudly enough for most of the bar to hear if they want to listen in:

    1. If it's about sports, there will be someone who hates the team someone else loves, and arguing, friendly or otherwise, will ensue.
    2. If it's about politics, well, let's hope it stops short of fisticuffs
    3. If it's about race, sex, religion, some people will be offended, and things will get heated
    4. If it's about horses, some wisebutt (me) will comment how much he wants to try horse.  And camel, for that matter.  I hear it's delicious.  Someone will get mad.
    5. If it's about cute kitty pictures, some wisebutt (not me in this case, because it wouldn't be worth the effort) will show a kitty being eaten by an alligator, or something.

    Point is, in any large group of people, there will be biases and tribal mentality based on them, and literally any topic of conversation can lead to polite conversation spinning out of hand.  That's life for adults.  We're old and hopefully wise enough to self-moderate and/or walk away when things get heated.  It's not the bartender's (in this case, LL's) job to do more than stop things before it comes to violence and the bar being burnt down.  We also should be prepared for the consequences if we insist on hanging out at the wrong bar; ie. don't expect to badmouth the cops at a bar next to the police station and not have issues.

    And, of course, we never really mature past the high school mentality when it comes to cliquish behavior.

    Folks who don't like hanging out in such an environment should do what I do, drink at home.  The booze is cheaper, poured promptly, I can hear the dammed television, and I don't have Teddy, who lives in an apartment above the bar, constantly talking to me like I'm his best friend.

    • Like 9
    • Haha 1
  3. 14 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

    I just had a phone chat with a friend who's firmly in Tolya's camp. He made some valid points and missed some, too. One of his arguments was that, almost everywhere that random antibody testing is being done the infection rate is north of 15%, suggesting that herd immunity is within reach. I've no doubt that there are more infected than the current counts indicate, but it's also the case that the current antibody tests are producing significant false positive and false negatives. I can't think of a single COVID-19 statistic I really trust right now.

    The other point my friend made was that, after accounting for co-morbidities, the actual COVID-19 mortality rate is comparable to the flu. When I asked him if he was comparing to flu, minus co-morbidities, he paused and said... "hmm".

    My gut feeling at the moment is that enough people will act responsibly when restrictions are lifted to get R0 below one and keep it there. I don't have a lot of confidence in that feeling, but I think it more likely that we're on the path to recovery (long and slow as it might be) than to doom. We've all seen the news reports of people crammed together to protest safe distancing restrictions, but I think that's not representative of the larger population. Those reports remind me of the "idiot on the street" segments that are so popular on late night television. You find what you look for.

    The difference between the urban and rural rates Scylla mentioned underpin the debate between states and the federal government and between cities and states regarding lifting of restrictions. Unfortunately nobody's really in a good position to call the shots. The interconnectedness of modern society entangles everyone in everyone else's business. One of the advantages of the US being a confederation of states is that we get to run lots of experiments, both intention and accidental. That's also a disadvantage. The big question for me, once again, is whether we'll learn anything from all this.

    The second question is just what the long term economic costs will be. The markets don't seem terribly worried at the moment.

     

    Some very good points.  Isn't the fact that the models used to make decisions thus far have been terribly inaccurate (and always on the "we're all gonna die!" side), the data is unreliable, and that what works in urban areas vs. what works in rural areas may be be significantly different, all argument AGAINST the sort of state-wide mandates we've seen?  Nebraska's approach has been to let cities and counties decide for themselves, for instance.

    Also, while I could understand Scylla's point (setting the bad use of comparison data aside) in terms of infection rate (people crammed together are going to pass viruses more quickly) it seems to fail when applied to death rates, which I have focused on.  Rural residents have much less convenient access to health care than someone in, say, NYC.  They also tend to livemore isolated lives, so there is going to be less pressure from friends, family, and neighbors to go get checked out.  There is minimal evidence that NYC's health care system being overwhelmed caused their high death rate; the Navy hospital ship and much of the field hospital capacity went unused, lots of ventilators remained in their shipping boxes, hospitals are laying off staff because they aren't allowed to do anything but emergency work, etc.

    As for the markets, they are still down 15% from before the world went to heck - markets react quickly to information, so their worry is already factored in.  The economic cost in terms of the markets at the moment is 1/7th of the average American's investment portfolio.  The markets are also still pretty volatile, and if this drags on and we start to see consecutive quarters of bad corporate earnings, we'll likely see them go down further.  Final point on economics, then I should probably get back to work - certain people seem to feel that the push to reopen things is somehow greedy corporations putting dollars over lives.  That is certainly how Cuomo consistently puts it while trying to justify his own actions.  That's pretty preposterous.  Most large businesses are still operating, even if at lower levels, and can sustain months of this.  It's the small businesses that are being crushed.  They don't have large capital reserves or an ability to easily borrow operating capital, and can't take a lot of the actions (notably lay off people) to stay afloat that large businesses can.  It's not oil execs being led off in handcuffs, it's hair salon operators, and I don't see business executives at protests over this (they're at home as their salaries keep getting paid), I see tattoo artists.  A month or two of being locked out of their businesses puts them under, and for them it's not just a matter of going through a bankruptcy reorganization and getting your golden parachute paid out before heading off the the consulting biz.  Mostly it's just people that the media hasn't been able to frighten into believing Covid death is raining from the skies and would just like to go back to living their lives rather than living under virtual house arrest to ease the fears of other people.

    • Like 5
  4. 10 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

    * looks for "the spittle of insensate rage"

    All one has to do is look at the policies of Republicans and see they don't care about the poor, as their intentions are always to funnel more to the wealthy and take more from the disadvantaged. They see poverty as a moral failing. I can't count the number times you have put down the "worker bees", which is where I base my opinion of your thoughts on the poor.  So for you to suddenly care about poor people in Africa is ludicrous.

    You even prefaced your concern with  " So let me ask the SJW's among us"  -- as if anyone truly caring about the disadvantaged is exhibiting some sort of fake stance? That there really could be no concern because anyone who cares is actually a Social Justice Warrior who only pretends to care?   I mean, if you don't believe anybody else really cares then how could you?

     

    If you wish to continue parroting partisan nonsense from MSNBC, feel free.  I'm not going to engage further with someone who is incapable of debating beyond emotional histrionics, especially one who consistently misrepresents what I say.  Your blind hatred of any viewpoint other than your own is really sad, but all to common these days.

    • Like 1
  5. 9 hours ago, Seicher Rae said:

    Hm. I am not an epidemiologist (I can't even spell it without correction), but if you take a middle number of 750 for the people who tested positive as I stated, and 15 as the deaths, then that's a 2% morbidity rate? But that's just people who tested positive for the virus, not the people who actually got COVID, so if that is the morbidity rate (sigh, I should look it up, but I don't wanna)... 15 deaths/COVID cases, it would be higher than 2%.

    That is the increase in total deaths in the state.  As far as I can tell only 2 people died at Smithfield.  But, since I cannot be certain, I stated the upper limit possible.  Even if it's 15, it's hardly as awful an outbreak as it was made out to be, given individual nursing homes have had several times that many deaths (thanks to Cuomo ordering them to take Covid patients, which is about the most moronic idea ever, yet no bad press about that).  Covid is highly contagious (but fairly low lethality, whereas people act as if it's Ebola) and testing has been spotty at best, so basing comparisons on infections is unwise.  Not that basing comparisons on deaths is all that accurate, either, given the discrepancies on how that's been handled between states and over time.

    • Like 1
  6. 4 hours ago, PixieGirrrrl said:

    I really hope most Americans follow this pattern of logic in the next election. I'm not optimistic but will remain hopeful. 

    This should read: " You can be on some people's lists all of the time, and on all people's lists some of the time, but you cannot be on all people's lists all of the time." ... 😄

    Ummm, I didn't say what you quoted me as saying

  7. 13 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

    The numbers vary, like everywhere else, but the Smithfield plant in SD had 700-800 people test positive for the virus.

    I couldn't find reliable numbers (I only tried a so-so amount) for the number of people who contracted COVID-19 or the ones who died from it, but obviously those numbers are far less than 700-800. The plant, btw, employs something like 1500 people. And is in what people in SD call an urban area. It was a densely packed area (no pun intended).0

    The total increase number of deaths in SD from the start of the Smithfield outbreak to 2 weeks later was 15 (from 6 to 21)

    • Like 2
  8. 29 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

    With this statement ^^^ of course I agree.

    Second-term Reagan had people around him who kept him from being perceived as totally off his trolly. Biden isn't my first or even second or even third choice but I will vote for him for sooooo many reasons, most of them being, "Not Trump." You get 10 points for using "vociferous" in a Forum post and bonus points for using it correctly. Biden says idiotic things but they are not near the idiotic things Trump spews. Biden makes gaffs. Trump wants you to inject disinfectant.

    I mean ffs, Trump makes me long for the brilliance of W.

    Yup. But in the better of evils, pretty much anything (except maybe Pence) is better than Trump. Yay...

    Since we are continuously faced with deciding the lesser of two evils, perhaps it is time we changed how our leaders are chosen.  I may be forced to write in Jimmy Carter this time around, assuming he's alive in November, it's gotten so bad.  Carter was an incompetent schmuck, but I can honestly say I'd take him over any of the presidents thus far in this millennium.

    • Like 2
  9. 21 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

    If you don't care about poor people, if you feel it's okay that a certain percentage remain at the bottom of society in the US so that more can be funneled to the top in the name of freedom then YES....I can't see you caring about the starving people you're suddenly championing who might increasingly starve if the wealthier worlds economies tank.

    And I have said I don't care about poor people, where, exactly?

    I can close my eyes and see the spittle of insensate rage flying from your lips while you slanderously misrepresent what I say.  I do hope your orgasm of self-righteousness feels good, but, frankly, the fact that you cannot attribute a difference of opinion as to how to best alleviate poverty to anything but hate and disdain makes you look rather pathetic.

    • Thanks 1
  10. 1 minute ago, Seicher Rae said:

    Thanks. If you had your kids immunized then I would say the answer to my question of are you an anti-vaxxer is "No."

    I understand the concern about the economy. At this point, with numbers still coming in and shifting daily, and that we've not had this kind of "thing" in this circumstance... I understand the concern. I don't think there's enough proof one way or another. I do believe the experts who say opening too soon will kill more people. Will more people die of starvation in the US due to the economy? I'd *guess* not, and I see you are citing Africa, Asia... etc for the starvation. And no I'm not saying that American lives are better than African lives or something twisty like that. But if you're talking opening the American economy up to prevent American starvation...

    I had to look up SJW.

    One thing I am willing to say out loud that most people are too polite to say is, everyone is gonna die.  It sucks, but that is life.  Whether it be from Covid or a bus hitting you or, like I hope for myself, drinking myself into a coma while having sex with 4 women and a midget (replace with whatever the polite term is these days - it's just so I look huge by comparison anyway), we're all worm food.  Yes, reopening sooner rather than later will inevitably mean more people dead from Covid.  Reopening later will inevitably mean more people dead from suicide and domestic violence and eventually murder and most likely from starvation in 3rd world countries reliant on the West's insatiable appetite for their cheap labor and natural resource suddenly not being so hungry.  It's a lousy bargain either way.

    Here's the thing.  Businesses cannot stop themselves from going under, thus making their employees unemployed, poorer, more likely to lose their homes, more likely to suffer from all sorts of problems caused by a recession or depression, if they are prevented from opening.  I can, however, decide not to visit my 106 year old grandmother to eliminate the small chance I will expose her to Covid, and I can opt to only talk to my 77 year old mom from across the yard when I go over to run her errands and do her heavy labor, because their risk is far higher than mine.  Businesses can make decisions to continue having employees work from home, and all sorts of other options to minimize risk.  The current approach in 43 of 50 US states (and as far as I can tell every developed country other than Sweden) is to act as if preventing a single Covid death is worth all the long-term harm caused by the lockdowns, and, unfortunately, a large number of sheeple (as demonstrated by the reaction to my little post suggesting there is little evidence it's actually helped a great deal) become irrationally angry at any suggestion to the contrary.

    No doctor or nurse or scientist or government policy in history ever saved a single human life.  We cannot be saved.  We're all dead, we just haven't gotten there yet.  At what point is the prolongation of X number of lives no longer worth the damage to the lives of the other 99.5% (or more, given the most up to date overall lethality rates) who will not die of the disease, even if they get it?  Sweden, South Dakota, etc. made the right choice, in my opinion, to know that more people would die, but that people could to a larger extent manage their own risk and make their own decisions based on their own situations rather than having some person in government make those decisions for them.

    Or, in the words of a great philosopher:

    DRENNAN BLOG: The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few ...

     

    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
  11. 3 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

    Yes, that is concerning as well. It has been shown that this POTUS pays way too much attention to entertainment tv, some of it masquerading as news. And fictional tv shows always have this plot line where vaccines are created in hours or days and miraculously save everyone. I think a lot of the general public has this kind of expectation and hope. (No, I don't have hard numbers to support that belief, but that belief goes hand in hand with other stupid things people think all of the time based on tv shows.) I think there is pressure to appease that expectation and hope by moving too fast, and there absolutely could be consequences to that.

    Trump doesn't listen to anyone, he just babbles.  He's like second-term Reagan.  Or Biden, but more vociferous.

    We don't have a single major party leader who shouldn't be thrown into the sausage grinder to make Soylent Green.

    • Thanks 1
  12. 56 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

    European countries do tend to trust their governments more, and so obeying or going along with government recommendations to a greater degree would follow from this trust.  Why do you think they trust their government more than we generally do in the US?

    Because we fought a rather long and bloody war to get rid of a king, while they still have theirs, and have 2,000 years of history of relying on their kings (currently, their governments) solving their problems for them?

    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 2
  13. 1 minute ago, Seicher Rae said:

    Huh?

    I was addressing your statement about SD and other low populated states, and yes, while SD is low population it did also have a huge cluster at the Smithfield plant.

    So, I'm not quite sure what point I proved further?

    And as far as that plant goes, if they couldn't/wouldn't protect their employees better than they did then yes, that plant should have shut down. Have you read about that plant? It was pretty bad. Smithfield doesn't have a great record in employee conditions anyway. I don't know what they processed there, but they do make great bacon... and I wouldn't call it essential.

    That "huge cluster" was no more than 15 people.  See, the "huge cluster" was only huge because of the low population in the area.

  14. 1 minute ago, Seicher Rae said:

    @Tolya Ugajin I know you are fiscally conservative, but are you an anti-vaxxer as well?

    Depends on the vaccine and the situation.  I don't take the flu shot, because I'm not particularly at risk.  I did have my kids immunized against pretty much everything, because they were.  One must weight the risks and rewards when making a decision.  Thus far, it seems there is no reward to keeping the economy shut down, yet the UN is projecting up to 130,000,000 additional deaths, not from the virus itself, but from starvation caused by the economic impacts of measures to fight it.

    So, let me ask the SJW's among us, are a few hundred thousand projected (and we know how inaccurate the projections have been thus far) lives "saved" in Europe and North America, worth tens of millions starving to death in Africa, Asia, and Latin America?  https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/africa/coronavirus-famine-un-warning-intl/index.html

    • Like 1
  15. 2 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

    However, the Smithfield factory in SD, which didn't practice any kind of reasonable protective measures against the coronavirus, had at least at one time the biggest cluster of coronavirus cases in the country... 

    There are lies, damnable lies, and statistics.

    So what you're saying is that this essential business, which would have remained open in ANY state, accounts for the majority of that states deaths.  Correct - and which further proves the point.  I mean, unless you want to have no food production in the US and we can start eating out neighbors.

    • Like 1
  16. 40 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

    Tolya, this is the kind of argument that nearly exemplifies how one can render mere statistics not merely meaningless, but actually misleading.

    Let me throw another couple of stats at you that may highlight the problem with your argument.

    New York City: Population Density: 10,715/km2

    South Dakota: Population Density: 4.42/km2

    Why is it, do you think, that the virus has hit urban areas particularly hard? Do you see any, oh, I don't know, demographic similarities between the particularly hard hit areas that might explain why they have been particularly hard hit? Not to mention the fact that NYC, New Jersey, etc. are transportation hubs that see an enormous amount of international traffic.

    Then there is the chronological issue: both Italy and New York instituted shut downs after the virus was already firmly established. God knows what the death toll in these places might have been if they had not responded as they did, late as it was. One of the problems, of course, is that we can't know how many would have died, and the impacts upon their economies, had they not shut down.

    Oh, and cultural differences. Sweden (which actually has a very high mortality rate compared to its Scandinavian neighbours: 291/million, as opposed to Denmark at 87/million, and Norway at 40/million) possesses a culture in which the populace is generally far more receptive to voluntary restrictions than many other places in the world. The Swedes are simply better at following guidance from their government than are others. (The same is probably true of Canadians, which is one reason why we don't have people shooting security guards or assaulting park rangers over social distancing and face masks. And why our contagion and mortality rates are substantially lower than yours.)

    The question of how tightly the economy should be shut down, and when it should be opened up, is entirely legitimate. It's not well served, however, by the selective serving up of statistics freed of all context.

    This kind of argument itself exemplifies selective and misleading statistics free of context.  I used NY state, not city, but, by all means, use the wrong comparison to try and make your point.  Did you bother to look at anything but the most densely populated city in the US and improperly compare it to a state?  Did you, say, look at New Mexico, with triple the rate and a comparable population density to SD?  Of course you didn't.  Or did you similarly compare Louisiana to Iowa or Utah (two more states without statewide lockdowns) and their comparable population densities, yet, gosh, Louisiana is much higher in death rate?  Betting you didn't.  No, you pulled a statistic that isn't a proper comparison to attempt to bolster what you want to believe.  If it's about population density, why is Delaware, with about the same density as NY state (and a similar distribution between urban and rural population) so much lower in infection rate?  Or why NJ has 2.5 times the density as NY yet has a lower infection rate?  About half the population of NJ (in case you're not familiar) live in what is essentially "NYC across the Hudson".

    A review of more than your cherry picked single data point makes it rather hard to credit population density as the controlling variable.

    You're correct, arguments are not well served by selective serving up of statistics devoid of context, which is what you're attempting.  Nor are they well served by nebulous and unquantifiable assumptions and assertions.  For instance, you seriously want to argue that the Brits or Dutch and the Swedes are particularly different in terms of "obedience to authority" or timing of infections?  And, how does one quantify the supposed "obedience"?  Are we to believe that the differences in infection and "obedience" are significantly different between NJ and NY?  Right next door to each other, very similar politics, populations served (as you sort of pointed out) by the same airports and sea ports and train systems?  And similar restrictions.  Yet, significant differences in infection rates.  Hmmm, doesn't seem like death rate is all that dependent on any of the things you assert?  And surely you'd agree New Yorkers are more willing to conform to authority than people in, say, Texas, with 1/40th the infection rate.  And Texas is no slouch when it comes to enforcing lockdowns - they just jailed a salon operator for opening her business back up.

    • Like 1
  17. I'm starting to feel the need to vent over the questionable effectiveness of shutting down the economy to "save" us, especially as it pertains to the dictatorial actions taken by some governors, including moves that have already been (and will doubtless continue to be) found to be unconstitutional.  There really doesn't seem to be much benefit.  Seven states declined to institute stay at home orders in the US. One of them, South Dakota, has gotten particularly bad press for refusing to do so. Yet, 5 of those 7states (including South Dakota) are in the lowest 10 states in terms of Covid death rate. Only 1 of the 7, Iowa, is in the top half (and it's right at the midway mark), and it has the same rate as its neighbor, Wisconsin, which does have such an order, and a lower rate than two of it's other neighbors, Minnesota and Illinois. Meanwhile, most of the states with the highest death rates (New York, NJ, CT, MI and PA have death rates from 11 to 63 times that of South Dakota) have the most draconian measures.

    On a national level, Sweden for the most part went on with life as normal, and has been loudly derided for doing so, yet their death rate is quite a bit lower than Italy's (which shut down to the point of riots in parts of the country), Spain, France, UK, Belgium (which has the worst national rate by a fair margin), and the Netherlands - all countries with advanced, modern, and predominantly free health care, like Sweden has - and has a death rate roughly 1/5th that of New York state. We've all heard how much Cuomo is lauded for all his "strong actions", but New York State is by far the most deadly place to live in terms of Covid, despite having so much hospital capacity that much of the emergency hospital space constructed went unused.

    Voluntarily crippling the global economy doesn't seem to be getting significantly better results than simply educating citizens and asking them to take sensible precautions, yet we continue to do so at the urging of scientists whose projections and models repeatedly prove to be wildly inaccurate.

    Note, in the included sources, one is deaths per 100,000, one is deaths per million, so if you wish to compare states to nations, multiply the state numbers by 10.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

  18. I'm sorry you're having a hard time with this person, but if anything is happening OUTSIDE SL, the Lab will not (and in almost any event can not) do anything about it.  Even if it's happening inside SL, what they can do is limited (and in most cases they'll just default to their, "we don't get involved in interpersonal disputes" line).  Nor will they tell you what, if anything, they have done - so for all you know they've done everything they can or are inclined to do, and it was ineffective.  You can mute them, ask your friends to mute them, go to places where they are banned or where they cannot find you (note, it is impossible to hide truly your online status so they will always know you are on, unless it's an account they do not know) and eventually they will tire of their juvenile game.  You could create an alt, but unless you're willing to start completely over (including cutting contact with all your old SL friends) eventually this person will probably find you again, if they are motivated.  If their behavior in RL meets the definition of stalking in your locale, you can and should report it to the authorities and perhaps they can help.

    The supposed prohibition on sharing chat is a giant canard, anyway.  What is the point of prohibiting sharing chat logs when one can simply relay what was said by paraphrasing the conversation?  Heck, one could simply read the chat log in voice and there'd be no record anything was shared.  Or one could clip it and send it via email, skype, discord, or smoke signals for that matter, the whole, "well if it's shared it OUTSIDE of SL, that's not LL's problem."  Or, heck, one could claim the person gave you permission in voice or via RL means.  Even Congressional ethics rules don't have as many loopholes as LL's "no sharing chat logs" rule.  Also, why would anyone believe a shared chat log when it is ridiculously simple to fake them, and by sharing the log the person is demonstrating to the person they are sharing it with that they have zero regard for privacy and confidentiality, and so not someone to be trusted? 

    Somewhere in the depths of time some whiny person with a high school mentality complained about this to the right person and behold, a new rule that there is no serious intention to enforce, and which creates never ending drama, rather than just forcing people to act like adults and behave as they would in RL when dealing with gossips and busybodies.  I tell people feel free to share my chat logs, but if you share something you should have known NOT to share, then by all means I'll give someone a doctored chat log wherein they asked for me to dress in a clown suit and give them wild monkey butt love while I call them "Melania" and spanking them with a toilet brush.

    Did someone slip LSD into my coffee again?

    • Like 4
  19. On 4/24/2020 at 8:50 PM, kiramanell said:

     

    That argument works remarkably both ways: just because you can say something nasty, and calculated that you will likely get away with it, doesn't mean you should. :) 

    If we limit what we say to nice things, then nobody learns about bad things until it's too late for them.  It seems irresponsible to allow others to live in ignorance and as a result doom them to repeat your own bad experiences.

  20. Sorry, I cannot relate.  I frequently wear the same suit for a month!

    However, my first thought is, basing your organizational structure on designers is only a good idea if you're some sort of fashion writer.  Assuming you want it organized for actually wearing the stuff in the future, I'd suggest approaching it as follows:

    1:  When you go to your closet and ask, "what do I want to wear?" what are all the different answers you might give?  Shorts?  Jeans?  Club wear?  ***** wear?  Bathing suits?  List all of those and create a folder for each.

    2:  For each of those (and it's likely different for each) how would you then break down the decision?  For swimsuits, it might be one piece, two piece, and super sexy, for instance.  Shorts might be by color.  List each of those options, and then create a subfolder for each.  You may also want to add a "go to" folder for your absolute favorites in that category that you can use for a quick change without having to look too hard, and perhaps an "obsolete" folder for stuff you cannot bear to trash but will almost certainly never wear again.  Sort of like putting it in the attic in clearly labeled boxes (oh, here's all my old swimsuits, let's see the drek they made in 2011!)

    3:  Since designer is important to you, create a subfolder (as you move stuff in) for each designer under each of those 2nd level folders.  Make sure you keep the name consistent for each designer.  Now, if you want to see everything you have for a particular designer, you can just search for that designer, and you'll not only find all their stuff, but, because the folders above each will show up, you'll know what kind of clothing it is, what color (or whatever) that bathing suit is, etc.

    4:  If you REALLY want to be OCD, create a subfolder for each designer (you're 4 levels down now) with the year it came out.

    This should be infinitely scalable and allow you to easily find what you're looking for quickly.

    Now, if you want to talk sorting out thousands of notecards for a library, I'm your guy.

  21. I do it all the time.  Have one in there right now.  If people cannot handle a bit of negative publicity, perhaps they should ensure good experiences for their customers.

    After all, what's the worst that can happen?  Someone reports it, the Lindens actually decide to get involved in what is essentially an interpersonal dispute (which they strenuously claim they will not do) and tell you to remove the pick?  BHD.

    Just because someone can silence you doesn't mean you shouldn't speak.

    • Like 6
  22. I barely notice anything negative.  I'm not one who goes out for entertainment very often, and thus far my normal stores (Home Depot, grocer, even the flower store nearby) are all open for business.  I'm saving a ton on gas (even without the prices dropping) and I'm getting better at working from home by using a checklist - complete an item, go screw around a bit, complete an item, screw around some more.  Other than not being able to visit my mother, no complaints personally.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...