News: All new forum theme!  See Forum Announcements for more information. 

  • March 02, 2015, 10:33:22 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
51
I'm livid on your behalf.  Your Aunt was so far over the line as to not be able to see it.

Nothing new to add except that you were far nicer to her than I would have been or you would ever need to be.  Since you don't feel you can give her a Cut Direct I would recommend having as little contact with her as possible and sharing nothing about your life with her.
52
To stir the pot still further with input from England -- we have the old nursery rhyme:


Ride a cock-horse to Banbury Cross

To see a fine lady ride on a white horse...


In England nowadays, "cross" rhymes with "horse" like it rhymes with "sauce", i.e. it doesn't properly. (Without getting into the business of one or two syllables for "....orse" words -- where I suspect that "Americans tend to pronounce r's, whereas Brits and Aussies don't", gets in on the act.)   I suppose that either: centuries ago, English pronunciation in this was different from nowadays, and the two words were an exact rhyme; or else, the rhymesters granted themselves poetic licence, and were satisfied with a semi-rhyme !
53
Life...in general / Re: Limited space on group event
« Last post by Free Range Hippy Chick on Today at 07:56:22 AM »
1- If the couple paid their way, but someone else from the group went in their place, should the couple be allowed to keep their priority for next year since they met the obligation part of the night?

I can see the point of either 'no, if you don't go you lose your place' or 'you can have one pass if the organisers think it's reasonable' but I think the organisers do need to formalise a rule. I can see a couple who couldn't go paying for the places to keep their priority, and then not actually going, so that you end up with 2 unfilled places and a lot of people thinking 'well, we could have gone, even if it was only this one year, if they'd said...' and the original couple saying 'no, we paid for tickets so our spaces were covered; it's up to us whether we actually want to attend or not'.

2- This year there will be four people unable to attend (in this case, it is two couples). This is very rare. When the next person on the waiting list (a couple, Jay & Kay) learned that they would get to go, they said they wanted to bring their (grown) kids, too. This would take up all four open spots, with the benefit of priority for future years. The grown kids are 30-somethings and a common part of the whole group. Then, a couple that was already "in" (Don and Lou) and have attended for several years said they want their kids to come-- shouldn't their kids have a chance before the other couples' kids? Is this fair? The waiting list has always been informal; saying "Jay" rather than "Jay and Kay, and their kids."

Actually, I think the fact that it's an adult event - a pub crawl - matters. Multi-generational family units are a red herring here because if the children were children they wouldn't be able to go on a pub crawl anyway. So what you've got is two linked couples and no, I don't think that 'Jay and Kay' actually means 'Jay and Kay and their children Bea and Dee' any more than it would mean 'Jay and Kay and their unrelated friends John and Jane'.

3- If the next person on the list was not married, should they get to bring a SO who is not part of the group?

That's harder and I can see arguments both ways but I think I fall on the side of yes, because that's how you get new people into the group.
54
I actually once reported to Roger Ebert the name of a "critic" in Australia who'd basically just stolen his review of a movie and reposted it onoine under his own name. Within days I got a response from Ebert and the review had disappeared from the imdb link page.

Rob
55
Life...in general / Re: Bringing one party's leftovers to another party
« Last post by Margo on Today at 07:49:26 AM »
I agree that it was very rude indeed. Even if they had thought it was OK to bring extra food (which seems pretty 'off' when you are attending an event where the host's food is the main event anyway!) it was rude for them to dump it on the table,.

At most, they should have *asked* the host whether it was OK to bring it, and where to put it.

And the host would have been absolutely fine to have removed the cake and placed it out of sight so as not to distract or detract from their carefully planned meal.

I think the fact that the cake was left over is a red herring in this case, t would have been just the same had it been un-touched.
56
Time For a Coffee Break! / Re: The dress that "broke the internet"
« Last post by NestHolder on Today at 07:47:40 AM »
I see it as pale, slightly violet-tinged blue, with a coffee/gold trim.  I interpret this as a white dress photographed with some weird light and shadows going on, so I can (almost) understand how my DH looked at it on my monitor and declared it white and gold.  I cannot for the life of me figure out how a dress that is in actual fact dark blue and black could possibly look like this. 
57
I agree with the PPs that you are absolutely right and your dad is wrong. It is always rude to invite additional people when you are not the host/organiser, unless the person who is organising has explicitly invited you to do so.

(I had this happen once. I was at a convention primarily to see a friend of mine. We planned to go out for a meal and invited 4 other people to join us. it was explicit that we were planning to eat out together as we had not had much time to catch up during the con itself and wanted the chance to do so. One of the people invited was invited primarily because the situation meant it would be very awkward not to invite them, but they were aware of the fact that the meal was to spend some time together in a smaller group. That person ended up inviting a load more people, so what was supposed to have been a quiet meal for 6 of us turned out being a group of about 20, and friend and I ended up not even sitting at the same table as the 2 of the original people we'd invited becuae we wanted to catch up with them... )
58
Time For a Coffee Break! / Re: The dress that "broke the internet"
« Last post by HoneyBee42 on Today at 07:39:23 AM »
In town yesterday, a branch of the shop had the dress in the window. I see it both on screen and in reality as blue, but actually all I could think looking at the real thing was that it was seriously ugly and looked as if it had been made of something that hadn't taken tumble drying well and had been trimmed with frayed knicker elastic. The manufacturers and the shop, mind you, will be laughing all the way to the bank, I expect.

Especially if they decide to then make another white/gold version to sell as well.
59
Life...in general / Re: Limited space on group event
« Last post by Margo on Today at 07:33:38 AM »
Quote
1- If the couple paid their way, but someone else from the group went in their place, should the couple be allowed to keep their priority for next year since they met the obligation part of the night?

I think it would be reasonable to allow this for one year, if the couple are very loyal members. Hwever, i think it would be wise for the organisers to be celar on why they are allowing it (e.g. Couple have been members for over 10 years, it's a one-off exemption etc)
Quote
2- This year there will be four people unable to attend (in this case, it is two couples). This is very rare. When the next person on the waiting list (a couple, Jay & Kay) learned that they would get to go, they said they wanted to bring their (grown) kids, too. This would take up all four open spots, with the benefit of priority for future years. The grown kids are 30-somethings and a common part of the whole group. Then, a couple that was already "in" (Don and Lou) and have attended for several years said they want their kids to come-- shouldn't their kids have a chance before the other couples' kids? Is this fair? The waiting list has always been informal; saying "Jay" rather than "Jay and Kay, and their kids."

This 'feels' unfair to me. If I were on the waiting list, I would be pretty annoyed to find that someone else had been allowed to jump the queue just because they were related to someone. Presumably the adult children could have been on the waiting list themselves, had they wished?

Quote
3- If the next person on the list was not married, should they get to bring a SO who is not part of the group?
It sounds like the kind of thing where people would are likely to attend as couples if they were are a couple, so this doesn't seem unreasonable to me, however,  I do think that the person on the waiting list should let the organiser know they are half a couple as soon as that becomes the case, and perhaps decide whether that means that if only what spot comes up, the person on the top of the list gets it and their partner has to wait or whether you simply give the spot to the single person highest on the lsit, as you are filling a single spot, not a double one.

However, with all of these scenarios, I think the single most important this would be to be consistent, and as clear as possible about how things will work.  For instance, I might not agree that some people should be allowed to miss a year without losing their place, but if there was a clear rule that this was only available to people who fit specific criteria (e.g. members for at least 10 years, no more than one missed year per person per decade etc)  it would be better than if it is (or appears to be) well, normally if you miss a year you go back to the bottom of the waiting list, but as it's Bill and Ann we'll waive that rule because they are Bill and Annie and they are the friends of the organiser.
(If the reality is that Organiser takes the view that it is their event and they will do as they want, that is OK, but they need to be upfront about that as well!)
60
I once went to a friend's house to drop something through the letterbox when I knew she was out and would be away from home all week, travelling between different job sites. On her driveway I found her house keys, which she had dropped as she got into her car. I couldn't raise her on her mobile phone, and this was in the days when coverage was rather more patchy than it is today but I left a message there, and then called her employer and left three separate messages at different sites, that I had her keys, that I would keep them until she got in touch, and that I had checked the house - because I knew that as soon as she realised her keys were missing, she would panic in case they had been stolen and her house had been burgled.

It would never have occurred to me to keep her keys 'to teach her not to be so careless'.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10