Archangel

That’s your opinion 😜

And so it is. Good for you. My favorite steak is chuck steak. Pretty damn cheap—but the best thing out there!

Reminds me once… Took my parents to a nice restaurant specializing in Bison when they were visiting some years ago. My father doesn’t do different well. It’s partly a function of his age, but more just his personality. At any rate, I told him “Get anything you want but I would like if you got a bison steak.” What did he get? A beef hamburger and fries…He lives for hamburgers and hotdogs. To him, they’re worth looking forward to and salivating over.

Old timers should be happy newbies are asking questions and interested. It’s a chance to impart “wisdom.” It also means that the show keeps going as the old timers age out and newbies take over—in any endeavor. What you’ve worked for isn’t lost!

From my unscientific analysis, any level of thinking about time kills it. I’ve found actually gummies really help. If you’re open to that. Not everyone is. No judgment.

Which now makes weeding those types out easier without even reaching out because none of those appeals to me whatsoever… Jedem Tierchen sein Pläsierchen…but I sincerely don’t “get” some fetishes. 🤷🏼‍♂️

She was a homely sort.

Curmudgeons don’t handle change well. Nor do they handle newbies well—unless of course newbies do it the way we always did it. Curmudgeons aren’t known for their civility! It’s also not at all welcoming to say “We’ve talked about this before” and provide only links to other threads. It shuts a person down. It also has an “I know better than you” air about it. And it doesn’t take whoever took the time to post something seriously enough to engage what they posted, but does take them seriously enough to effectively say, “Shut up.” It also breeds an in-group/out-group cliquish culture. Although some are okay with that—when they’re part of the in-group. What exactly is gained by wading into a discussion and saying, “We’ve talked about this before?” Who benefits from that? The OP certainly not. Perhaps the one making the remark, but likely at the expense of someone else. Again—hardly civil behavior!

Thanks! I would like to find his ad on RM – my suspicion is his BFE would be heavenly 🤣

I have been waiting since March for my return. I can’t decide if it’s the reduced workforce at the IRS, or if it’s something else. All around it’s very frustrating.

I’m aware that I’m more than likely casting pearls before swine here, but I was pregnant with an opinion that needed delivering!

Physician, heal thyself! 😂

Everything I’ve ever seen of wagyu, I don’t think I’d like it!

Not everyone has been here as long as others. Not every new person here knows about the search function. And just because they do and may have used it does it mean they want to sift through multiple pages of multiple threads on a topic that might not be exactly what they’re looking for as far as an answer or a discussion. Why do I say this? Because saying “We’ve talked about this before” or some variation of it really isn’t helpful. And it’s almost rude to someone who’s asking and to those who might be involved in the conversation. I don’t know about others here, but in my family, workplace, and friends circles, we rehash the same topics often. Most of life’s topics don’t have an expiration date or a moratorium having been once discussed… Might I suggest this response if the urge to say “We’ve talked about this before” or something similar itches:

Opinion-sharing on any number of issues is what this forum is about. The entire deli section is about opinions – some very much about “beauty.” Others about value. If sharing opinions isn’t valuable or desirable here, what exactly is the point of Company of Men?

I find that assumption judgmental. Some of us have limits. It’s nothing to do with “bankrolling” anything. Some things, some experiences…simply aren’t worth it. That’s my take on it. I say the same thing about luxury alcohol, designer clothing, premium cabins on cruises. About the only thing I would be willing to pay more than it’s really worth is food…and even then it’s a stretch. I just can’t see paying for something overpriced simply because I can. I’m not going to stand in my backyard and light $100 bills on fire. Paying more for something than it’s worth is effectively doing that. I would call that sort of behavior out in anyone… Also…what exactly is a microagressive post vs. an aggressive post vs. a macroaggressive post? I’ve heard of microagressions, but I can’t figure out what a “microaggressive post” is.

It definitely isn’t a stroke in the plus column, for sure… I’m not looking for a “bad boy,” anyway. I can understand the draw to appeal to a wide audience, but the “bad boy” persona is the last thing I want. I’ve dealt with that in real life enough; I don’t need to pay for it.

And sometimes the critics are out of step with the masses. I’ve found that if a movie is getting a lot of positive reviews from critics, I end up thinking it’s blah—and vice versa.

Also… On the seventh Jurassic Park movie you realize we’re going to see dinosaurs eat people – not engage in some scientific exploration of morality in the modern world. That was the job of the first movie – which it did. The rest of the movies (like all the subsequent Jaws movies) are meant simply to sate people’s desire to see dinosaurs eating people. The movie delivers on exactly what its intention is – mindless gore for the hungry masses. I never understood the need for every movie to be some sort of cinematic masterpiece insofar as its plot and symbolism and “message.” Sometimes you just want to watch something that may induce brainrot…

I liked it. Quite a bit. 🤷🏼‍♂️

@azdr0710I didn’t know what you were talking about at first. It seems I inadvertently gave a tapback. Fat fingers! Sorry!

Time management is definitely not his forte. I’m not sure about the drugs, to be fair. But it also wouldn’t necessarily surprise me. You got lucky that it only took him an hour to get ready with you. Caveat emptor.

It’s a shame he doesn’t have any face pictures. 😔

I’d like to propose a small but important amendment to the forum’s Rule 1 on Civility. The current rule reads: “1. Civility: Conduct yourself in a way that respects this site and all who come here. Hate speech/hateful speech, name-calling/labelling, inciting or engaging in arguments, publicly shaming, and attacking other members, groups of members, or people who are the topic of discussion is prohibited. Remember: you may criticize a person’s opinion but don’t attack the person.” I propose inserting the following clarification just before “Remember”: Unacceptable speech includes conscious or unconscious aiding, abetting, supporting, or endorsing disparaging and/or judgmental remarks concerning race, color, religion, sex (including transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, bodily physicality (including height and weight), disability, or genetic information. This clarification doesn’t alter the intent of the rule—it reinforces it. It provides clearer boundaries around what constitutes respectful discourse, including speech that may unintentionally cause harm or reinforce bias. Given that this forum includes people from a wide range of identities—many of whom experience intersectionality across multiple demographics—it seems important to name and protect those realities explicitly. It also brings the rule in line with well-established norms for civil behavior and helps ensure this forum remains a place where all participants feel respected and safe to engage. I hope this is received in the spirit of goodwill with which it’s offered, and not as a violation of any rule or posted in the wrong spot.