[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]
LOL, it takes an idiot like “harvey” over two weeks to “substantiate” his “claims” here yet he ca-a-a-a-an’t qui-i-i-te get it right. Nice try, though ….

[/quote]

If it takes an idiot like “harvey” over two weeks to “substantiate” his “claims” here yet he ca-a-a-a-an’t qui-i-i-te get it right., then what kind of person does it take to never substantiate her claims ever? To just lie and lie and then let those lies lie there? That would be you, lyinggurl. Not sure why you’d LOL at harvey but not yourself.

Prediction: Lyinggurl will ignore this post completely or come back with something that could only make sense in her warped mind. There will be no acknowledgement of her many lies, despite them all being right here in black and white.

[zk]

[quote=njtosd][quote=spdrun]Sadly, I had the great misfortune of being born in the US. Fortunately, I’m a dual citizen so this will be corrected next year.

I don’t need drugs. I need a one-way plane ticket, an apartment lease in Berlin or Prague for a half year. Every day spent outside of the US is like a breath of fresh air.

Most Americans have never stuck their noses outside of North America — only something like 35% even hold passports, so they don’t know what they’re missing being stuck here.[/quote]

Happy people are happy wherever they are, and the opposite is true, too. I, for one, have stuck my nose out many a time. My husband worked for a large French company and has travelled more than most. Both of us prefer it here (by far). Europe is interesting for a visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there, as the saying goes.[/quote]

Yeah, makes me want to trot out this parable again:

An old fella is sitting on his porch. A guy who’s thinking about moving to the area is driving by and stops to ask the old guy about the area. “What are the people like here?” The old guy asks in return, “How did you find the people where you came from?” The response is, “I found them to be generous, caring, kind, and fun.” The old guy says, “I think you’ll find them the same way here.” A different guy drives up later and asks the old guy the same question, and the old guy asks him the same question he asked the first guy. The second guy says, “I found them mean, backstabbing, and phony.” The old guy says, “I think you’ll find them the same way here.”

The same probably applies to what country you live in.

Sure, if you move from a disease-infested, famine-stricken, war-torn third-world country to a first-world country, you might be happier. But I doubt that a move from the U.S. to Europe would be enough to overcome the level of bitterness and anger that spdrun seems to be experiencing.

[zk]

If you knew, hypothetically, the exact state of the universe, and if the laws of physics were constant, and you knew them all, and if you had a (hypothetical) super computer with unlimited computing power, and you programmed that knowledge of the universe and those laws of physics in that computer, could that computer then predict the future of the universe? Everything from who the next president would be to which of your great grandson’s sperm would fertilize which of who’s egg, to every thought every person would ever have. If not, why not?

Why do we have the thoughts we have and do the things we do? Is there some force outside the laws of physics involved? Sure, the actual process is unimaginably complex. But what else is involved besides the state of the universe and the laws of physics?

Also on the subject:

Say a guy is a murderer. Did he have a choice? What made him the way he is? His environment and his genes? What else is there (not a rhetorical question)? What made him pull the trigger? A hot temper? Where did that come from? An inability to control his temper? Where did that come from? Selfishness? Where did that come from? An inability to empathize? Where did that come from? An inability to control himself in general? Where did that come from? What could have made him more able to control himself? Why didn’t he have it? It’s one thing to say he was weak. It’s another completely to figure out why he was weak and ask whether he had control of that. Sure, let’s say he was weak (-minded). What made him that way? Did he have control over what would or wouldn’t make him not weak? If he did have control over what would make him not weak, why didn’t he exercise that control? What would have made him exercise that control? More empathy? More concern for the law? More concern for society? Why didn’t he have those things? What, besides his genes and his environment, made him who he is? You can’t change your genes. And you can’t change your environment. (Things you have control over and change aren’t your “environment.” Maybe they are after you change them, but now we’re back to questions related to the original questions: Why did he or didn’t he change his environment and why did he change it the way he did?)

So, (and I’m not saying this is the case, I’m saying “if”) if what determines who you are and what you do is your genes and your environment, and you don’t have control over your genes or your environment, do you have any control over what you do? Do you have free will? Sure, I can decide right now to forget this post and do something else. You can decide to stop reading it. We’ll both decide one way or the other. But why? Does the fact that we can make either decision necessarily mean that that decision wasn’t predetermined?

BTW, I’m not suggesting that if a murderer or any other criminal has or doesn’t have true control over whether he commits a crime or not that he shouldn’t be punished. Punishment is necessary as a deterrent. Some people would be (are) swayed from crimes by threat of punishment. Also, society needs to be protected from criminals, sometimes by incarceration. Is it unfair to punish somebody for something he was predetermined to have no control over? Probably. But that doesn’t make it any less necessary. It’s also not fair that some people are born in war-torn, famine-ravaged countries and some are born in wealthy, healthy countries. It’s not fair that some people are born good-looking, socially brilliant, energetic and smart, while some are born ugly, socially inept, sluggish and stupid. If a guy is a murderer, a loser, a mean and very unlikeable person, should we feel sorry for him? I think we should (assuming he’s unhappy, which isn’t always the case). I think we should feel sorry for him every bit as much as we feel sorry for the person who was born in Somalia or the person who is ugly, inept, sluggish and stupid (assuming they’re unhappy, which isn’t always the case). Should we also punish the murderer? I think we must.

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Uhhhhh, harvey . . . I mean . . . pri_dk (former-champion-of-uninformed-trolling-but-improved-somewhat-as-of-late)?? Can you show the Piggs where I posted your (bolded) statement?

[/quote]

Really, lyinggurl, the nerve you have to ask someone to show you where he said something after you just got through lying about me dozens of times and never once accurately answered when I asked you many times to show me where I said something is indeed prodigious. I’m not sure how you don’t think you’re screwed up in the head. Then again, I suppose many unstable people are not aware of their disconnect.

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]

Uhhhhh, harvey . . . I mean . . . pri_dk …?? Can you show the Piggs where I posted your (bolded) statement?

[/quote]

Oh, the irony. Sucks, huh?

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]zk, I apologize here if you feel I was trying to make you “look bad.” Your main concern here seems to be that I was [/quote]
Really? You really think my main concern is you were trying to make me “look bad?”

That is truly ridiculous. My main concern is, obviously, that you made a bunch of stuff up. You lied. About me.

If you want me to accept an apology of yours, apologize for making stuff up.

Apologizing “if [I] feel” a certain way is not an apology for anything you did.

You have yet to even acknowledge the clearly demonstrated fact that you made stuff up. Since you don’t seem capable of even understanding that you’ve made stuff up, I have serious doubts that you can refrain from doing it in the future. And I think that’s bad for this forum.

[quote=bearishgurl] but, honestly, I really don’t have the time or desire for those kinds of BS games (especially now) and nothing could be further from the truth. The reality was that I saw an opportunity to “yank your chain” a little because your initial posts on the “tidy” thread clearly stated that you were frustrated with some aspects of living with your “tidy” partner because you were a lifelong “messy person” (“reformed” or not). [/quote]
Yank my chain all you want, but don’t make stuff up in order to do it. It should be clear that what I’m disgusted about is not you yanking my chain or trying to make me look bad. It should be clear that why I think you should be banned is that you’re making stuff up. I don’t know how to put it any more clearly. I can’t even imagine how you can’t see that from my last 4 or 5 posts. And particularly from the original post on this thread. So let me make it perfectly clear:

bg, I don’t care if you yank my chain. I don’t care if you try to make me look bad. If you don’t lie, then I either look bad or good on my own merits, and there’s not much you can do to change that. All I care about is that you don’t lie about me or about what I said .

There. Even you should be able to understand that. It’s not complicated at all.

[quote=bearishgurl] And there’s nothing wrong with that. But before the thread was even noticed by me, you (rather self-righteously) ranted on and on here in-finitum about all the ways you disagree that “tidiness” has anything to do with one’s character. (I respectfully disagree in that in some cases, tidyness (or lack thereof) has a lot to do with one’s character and we are all entitled to our own opinions.) All of your words here speak for themselves. [/quote]

I’m perfectly willing to let my words speak for themselves. It’s when you make up words for me that I have a problem.

[zk]

Wow. Thank you, CAR. I really appreciate that. Clearly that took some effort, and I am much obliged, madam.

You will soon see, however, that bg will pay truth and reason no mind. She will ignore the clear fact that she’s been making stuff up. (In fact, there are more than twice the fabrications than the ones you mentioned just in that one post). What she’ll do if she follows her previous m.o. is pretend for a while that she didn’t see your posts. Then, when she thinks people have forgotten it, she’ll rebut it with more lies and more drivel that only make sense in her small, warped brain. There will never be an admission of making stuff up.

Just watch.

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]Lol, I just sat down to take a stab on Joe and Jane Sixpack’s tax return and see zk’s latest rants and then decide to review the thread to refresh my memory:

[quote=zk]. . . bg, if you want to make me look stupid instead of yourself, try using my words instead of what you’ve been doing. I know I don’t give you much to work with, but if you’re patient it’ll probably happen for you.[/quote]

Good L@rd, zk. You’re now beginning to sound narcissistic with your last few rants.

YOU already gave me (and whoever else who wants to bite, lol) plenty to ammunition to make fun of your situation (as you describe it here) all the while vociferously berating people simply because they state here that they don’t like to be surrounded by untidiness or filth (I’m not a perfect housekeeper but I AM firmly in the FIH/brian camp).

To each his own.

[quote=zk]When I travel (I should say travelled, it’s different now that I’m married), I didn’t insist on daily room service. But I preferred it so that I didn’t have to clean. I will clean if I have to (I won’t tidy up, though, generally). I’m messy, but I’m not dirty. I don’t like cleaning, but I do it because I insist on clean. If somebody will do it for me, perfect.[/quote]

zk, you actually stated earlier in this thread that you believe it is essentially okay that you are messy, sloppy, whatever, because you don’t cheat on your spouse, you aren’t a spendthrift and aren’t a rapist or pedophile, none of which has anything to do with being clean or “tidy.” YOU yourself brought up all these attributes to compare with being a “messy person” right here on this thread! Later, above, you’ve stated here that you won’t “tidy up” (pick up after yourself) and, “If somebody will do it for (you), perfect.”

Glad you hear that you (hopefully) found a partner who will constantly pick up after you. Nevermind you can only invite half a dozen people at a time in your (expensive and expansive) back yard, can’t have a small super bowl party without a lot of grief afterwards and don’t travel anymore (due to your marital status?)

To the reader of your posts, it appears that you are clearly paying the price for having a partner who will constantly pick up after you. Whether you are paying a fair price (or not) for that service is in the eye of the beholder.

Don’t come here and talk about yourself ad nauseaum and then later backpedal in numerous paragraphs trying to defend yourself and say that someone got the wrong idea about you. Nobody did that, least of all me. You came here and did it to yourself … all without being prompted or cajoled. You even admitted here that you gave 97% in your relationship and then later backpedaled and stated you gave only ~45%. I can read your posts and surmise your situation from them just fine as can everyone else. I’ve been a lot of places in life and talked to a lot of people who have (or had) partnerships similar to what you describe yours to be here. If you have a “tacit agreement” with your partner about particular issues, that’s fine. It’s a free country.

If you’re happy, zk, then we’re all happy for you. Notice that I haven’t tried to insult you here but you have found it necessary to call me numerous names here, including “stupid,” as well as telling me, “fvck you,” which I’m assuming is another one of your defense mechanisms.

I’m about the least “emotional” one can be on this forum. As a matter of fact, the opposite can be said about me. I’ve tried on numerous occasions to inject a semblance of reality into other posters who became “emotional” (or just over-the-top “concerned”) about issues for which they were not considering all the facts and/or did not know all the facts. Two examples which come to mind would be rejecting a perfectly decent house on a perfectly decent street because of the presence of a nearby PC 290 registrant in residence or lambasting Pigg krowe (or her case or “misdeeds”) when she has not yet been tried in a court of law and has not yet had her day(s) in an administrative tribunal where her employment status will be adjudicated. There have been many other examples over the years. I’m only concerned about how the “system” actually works and how the the world works, NOT how I think it “should be.” I don’t care how the MSM has chosen to spin their latest “darling” story so it will “sell” to the (largely ignorant and complacent) public.

zk, your insults to me on this thread don’t bother me but are very telling about you. Why don’t you endeavor to just stick to the topic at hand and refrain from hurling insults at people who don’t have the same opinions that you do? The examples you gave about yourself here are fine. It’s perfectly legal to be “messy” (and have a partner who will pick up after them). We get it. OTOH, it’s okay for FIH/brian and others to consider themselves “superior” to messy people because they are clean and tidy.[/quote]

Nearly every sentence in that post contains an error or a fabrication.

Having torn many of your previous posts apart, and having seen you consistently deny that you were ever wrong, despite having just been shown (using your own words) that you were wrong, I see no use in wasting my time tearing this post apart and showing you you’re wrong again. I’m pretty sure most or all of the other members of this forum can see your errors, your lack of sense, and your ignorance. You, however, never will see them, even when somebody directly points them out to you. So, unless I get a spare hour this week, I’ll let your own foolish and uninformed words speak for themselves.

Stick to the topic at hand? How about you stick to the truth? How about you not misquote people? How about you not imply people said something when they didn’t? How about you read a thread carefully before you rant? How about you not make stuff up?

I doubt you can show me a single instance of me breaking one of the above rules. I can show dozens of instances of you breaking them just on two threads. In fact, there might be a dozen just in your last post.

Edit: I started counting, and I found a dozen before I got half way through your post.

bg, why do you feel you have to make stuff up?

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]Late to the thread, but wow… I think most of us get what ZK was trying to say here, and he did not connect being tidy to being a rapist or convict of any sort. Not sure where that came from.

[/quote]

Well, not only did she think I connected being tidy to being a rapist, she tried to connect me to same by saying that I was…

“indicat[ing] that YOU have your own issues that you are bringing here which have nothing to do with tidiness or cleanliness. zk, are you comparing yourself here to a pedophile or rapist who is “tidy?”

Somehow she thinks either I or anybody else on this forum is stupid enough to not think through what she is saying and to actually make that connection. Either that or she is stupid enough (or emotionally upset enough) to think that that connection exists.

She misread, didn’t read, quoted out of context, implied I said stuff I didn’t say, and just plain made stuff up, all in an obvious effort to make me look bad.

You say you don’t know where that came from, but I think it’s obvious. I’ve made bg look stupid a few times. She won’t outright admit it, but she must know it at some level, as evidenced by the fact that she’s lashing out.

As I said, I’m not proud of the fact that I’ve enjoyed making her look stupid. But at least I do it with her own words and her own stupidity. I don’t have to resort to a bunch of bs to make her look bad.

Apparently bg doesn’t realize it, but obviously she looks more and more ridiculous the more she lashes out emotionally and irrationally. Of course, it’s fine with me if she makes a fool of herself. I’m just glad we’re on a forum with mostly intelligent people who can see her foolishness for what it is.

Obviously, bg has some intelligent things to say sometimes. And she’s clearly not stupid in the traditional sense of the word. But she gets wrapped around the axle about something, and all sense goes right out the window. And her reluctance to admit mistakes results in her defending positions to the point of absurdity. Which wouldn’t bother me if she wasn’t cocky about it. There are few things that I find more appalling than somebody who is simultaneously being moronic and cocky.

If I continue to make bg look stupid when she’s simultaneously moronic and cocky, I’ll continue to do it using her own words. bg, if you want to make me look stupid instead of yourself, try using my words instead of what you’ve been doing. I know I don’t give you much to work with, but if you’re patient it’ll probably happen for you.

[zk]

[quote=flu]….Can someone please give me the cliff notes version of the past couple of threads?

It’s too much effort for me to read… (Hey, at least I admit it !)

Is Santee still La Jolla Adjunct? Is that the source of this debate?[/quote]

Here you go:

Rational debates were occuring. bg stepped in, half-read the threads, ranted emotionally, had her errors pointed out, ignored that, stuck to her guns, had her errors pointed out again, and is about to half-read those responses and continue to not understand what’s being discussed and continue to assert that she knows what she’s talking about, despite clear and obvious evidence to the contrary.

There you go, there’s your recap. And, bonus, a forecast.

[zk]

bg, reading your post, I see you’ve resorted to removing contextually-important parts of my posts, and you’ve forgotten large and important parts of this thread. Notably the parts where I illustrated your ignorance about how economic obsolescence affects buying and selling a home near a freeway. Nothing you’ve said can’t be answered by reading my previous posts. As long as you read them carefully and in their entirety.

Re-explaining what I’ve already explained, pointing out where you’ve forgotten stuff, pointing out where you’ve misquoted me, pointing out where you’ve implied I said something that I didn’t say, and asking you the same questions many times without an answer isn’t worth my time. The fun-to-work ratio has ceased to be over one. It’s fun debating someone who plays fair, reads carefully and completely, and disagrees with me. It’s a waste of time to debate someone who makes me point out their debate errors and who appears to have either not read or forgotten what I’ve written.

Sometimes it’s fun debating you because, I’m a bit ashamed to admit, I enjoy illustrating that you’re a harpy, not-very-bright shrew. You seem like you need your opinion of yourself knocked down a couple pegs. But that has gotten to be more work than fun. And it’s not really sinking in, anyway. You appear to be incapable of seeing when you’re wrong.

Nonetheless, I said I’d respond, so here it is:

[quote=bearishgurl]No, you don’t “have that right,” zk. What I said was that the “newer construction” homes which are built for moderate, middle and upper-middle income families are built on the “least desirable land.” Often, that land is bordering a freeway and some streets can suffer much worse with constant ambient noise than others in the same subdivision. Why is this so? a) Because the most desirable sections of land in CA coastal counties have already been developed or are privately owned; and b) the “rich” with their powerful community groups and well-connected neighbors with many resources can afford to fight CalTrans into oblivion to keep any open space close to themselves open space, fight for zoning and legislation to keep themselves insulated from the likes of freeway construction, flight paths and heavy industry, etc. [/quote]

You’ve resorted to removing contextually-important parts of my posts. That’s how you know you’re desperate.

You said:

“Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for.”

I said:

“Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways. So if people buy near a freeway, it’s because they “insist” on newer construction. Do I have that right? Is that how you came to the conclusion that…
“the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range”…?
If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did.”

Then you said that I said:

“Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways.”

The part about why people buy near a freeway is the key part of my question. You said some people buy near a freeway because they insist on newer construction. I was trying to ascertain how you came to that conclusion. And I asked if my guess as to your reasoning wasn’t correct, then what was your reasoning? Which you still haven’t answered.
How did you come to the conclusion that people settle for incessant freeway noise because they insist on newer construction?

[quote=zk]If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did. It’s fascinating to see that you can’t seem to imagine a person buying a house near a freeway for a good tradeoff (more time with their family), but it’s easy for you to see them buying one for (what you see as) a bad tradeoff (they “insist” on newer construction).[/quote]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Actually, buying a residential property with constant noise is a bad tradeoff, not a good one. It is not only newer construction that suffers from economic obsolescence due to freeway construction. Many older areas have had their own thoroughfares widened to connect with new freeway ramps and have a LOT more traffic today than they ever did or that they ever imagined they would when they purchased their home 40, 50 or 60+ years ago. The SR-56 as it looks today is a relatively new freeway. [/quote]

The whole point of this debate has been whether buying near a freeway can be a good tradeoff. You saying “it’s not” doesn’t mean anything. I’ve already illustrated (quite a few times) why it can be a good tradeoff for some people. And I’ve already illustrated your ignorance about how economic obsolescence affects buying a home near a freeway.

[quote=bearishgurl]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_56

Even though both ends of it already had residential development at the time of its construction, the SR-56 was only needed because of the relatively new construction which has popped up along its route in the last 15 years. As such, the development that has sprung up along its route is fairly new or new (<15 yrs old). A buyer looking to buy in the entire nine-mile stretch of the SR-56 (or works on either end of it) has many options. They don’t have to buy a home affected by the noise. zk, you still haven’t shown us a listing or ad for a home in or near the former “Rhodes Crossing” (now 56 merge) as the OP is referring to here and pricing it and then finding a similar nearby home without the freeway noise and pricing it. That was your “homework” and instead you would rather insult me. You claim that buyers “need” to make a “tradeoff” to buy a home that would be very uncomfortable to live in long-term and I maintain that they don’t. [/quote]

Show me where I said they “have to” buy a home with freeway noise. I said it could be a tradeoff that could be worth it for some people.

You can maintain they don’t need to buy a home near a freeway and I won’t disagree with you. That isn’t my point and it never has been. My point is, and has always been, that most not-rich people have to make some tradeoffs, and that for some of them freeway noise could be a reasonable option for them. How do you not know that that’s been my point? Oh, wait, I know. You’re not very bright and you can’t read very well. If you have another explanation for how you don’t know that, I’m all ears.

Inventory is low right now, and there really isn’t much for sale in that area. I don’t currently see two comparable houses with one near the freeway and one not. But let me ask you something: What would you expect to find in such a comparison? You do agree the one near the freeway will be cheaper, all other things being equal, right? Or one near the freeway might have something another one doesn’t but be the same price, right?

If not, why not?

If so, then my contention would be that some people (not you or me) would reasonably take the cheaper house and put up with the noise so that they could live in that neighborhood, and some people would reasonably take the same price house near the freeway so that they could have whatever it has that the other one doesn’t, but isn’t more expensive.

It’s a hypothetical question that really doesn’t need actual listings, although at some point such listings will appear.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Different strokes for different folks. Actually there are “bad” (or shall we say, “inadequately zoned”) parts of Chula Vista and gracious, stately, well-kept-up blocks of National City . . . as there is in every well-established micro area.

Why is there no good-quality land left in SD County for tract subdivisons? Because, aside from its exhorbitant purchase price, it is extremely costly for the subdivision and permitting process in this region (before one single-family pad has been graded), so much so that Big Development can’t build the compact mcmansion-type dwelling that today’s families are seeking without getting whatever land is leftover as dirt cheap as they can.

Read my lips. There has been no quality land left to buy for subdivision development in SD County (excepting the occasional 1-4 unit spec bldg on an urban razed lot) for the last 22 years. It was all taken before that. If you don’t believe me, ask the major Big Developers … and while you’re at it, ask them why they left town and when they left town (or exited the local residential SFR market). They’ll tell you the truth.

If you see ANY subdivision in SD County (of whatever size) springing up today that you believe lies on actual “quality” land, rest assured that that land has been owned by a developer or other private party for a minimum of 25 years. This longtime owner may or may not be the one who is developing it today. If not, each improved parcel will be very expensive at the time of marketing (over $1M).[/quote]

Below, you seem to be saying that no desirable locations are available to homebuyers:
[quote=bearishgurl]
Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for. [/quote]

But now you’re saying that land isn’t available to developers. If desirable locations are available to homebuyers (which they are), then your previous point is invalid, regardless of whether desirable land is available to developers.

I’m not sure about other areas, but in Carmel Valley, thousands of very nice homes unaffected by freeway noise have been built and made available to homebuyers recently.

Well, that was a waste of time and not fun. bg, if your response is more garbage that could be answered merely by reading my previous posts, I’m out. If you have anything to say that is fully informed about this thread, doesn’t misquote me, doesn’t imply I’ve said something I haven’t said, and doesn’t require me to re-explain what I’ve already said, I’m in.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Zk, I just want to clarify that tidiness is just one item in a good upbringing. There are other qualities such as being able to play chess, a musical instrument, athleticism, etc… I suppose that in order to quantify the whole person, you’d have to assign weights and scores to whatever criteria you believe are important. I personally assign more weight to tidiness.

I haven’t read the book but the title is “The life changing magic of tidying up.” That implies there’s positive magic to the process. You might as well argue that the whole premise of the book is flawed.

Also, you talked about forgetting about social norms and judging from a blank slate when it comes to tidiness and table manners. But then you bring up faithfulness in marriage. Marriage and faithfulness to one spouse are as strong social conventions as they get. Can we throw them out too?

I’m being facetious here, but I think that your wife has saved you from a life of messiness. You owe her a debt of gratitude. Your progeny are from now on going to pass on the art of being tidy.[/quote]

I’ll agree to disagree on how much weight to put on tidiness. It’s possible I undervalue it, but I think it’s obvious you overvalue it.

While I don’t think the premise of the book is flawed, I do think, as I said in previous posts, that the “magic” would only really apply to people who are bothered by clutter. Which isn’t everybody.

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]Awesome, zk. Waiting to hear from you! [/quote]

God, you really don’t know when you’re beat, do you. Allright, bedtime for me, but I’ll tear apart your post tomorrow. Looking forward to it.

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl] his criminal implications, to me, were way, way off the mark.

[/quote]

You really do just half-assed read the thread, go off half-cocked, and then not listen at all when people point out your mistakes, don’t you? Because if you were really paying attention, you wouldn’t say “criminal implications” at this point unless you were really, really stupid. So either pay attention or go try to smell some peanut butter.

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]

Ahhh, I find this thread re-a-llly interesting. zk, you brought up some things here that indicate that YOU have your own issues that you are bringing here which have nothing to do with tidiness or cleanliness. zk, are you comparing yourself here to a pedophile or rapist who is “tidy?” What does being a pedophile or rapist have to do with tidiness?
[/quote]

Can you smell peanut butter, bg? Science tells us that an early warning sign of Alzheimer’s is an inability to smell, and that if you can’t smell peanut butter, you should get further testing. I recommend that you head to the kitchen right now and check if you can smell peanut butter, because your ability to reason, which generally goes some time after the ability to smell, appears to be severely diminished.

Brian said, “clean, tidy people are superior. Superior in upbringing, and personal discipline.” I didn’t agree with this, and in order to demonstrate why I thought it was incorrect, I offered a hypothetical example of a person who was clean and tidy due to his upbringing, but was also a pedophile because of (another aspect of) his upbringing, therefore demonstrating that one could be tidy and not be superior in upbringing. I didn’t think it was that complicated at the time, but I guess I overestimated some of my audience.
[quote=bearishgurl]

zk, I find it very telling that your sample “tidy person,” (above) is a male who cheats on his wife and/or can’t control his spending, etc. In essence, you’ve stated here that you are a lifelong messy person by upbringing and habit yet are now only a “tidy person” because you feel you have to be to keep your relationship together. Infidelity, inability to control spending and failing to change oil in one’s vehicle are actually equally shared traits of both genders, none of which has anything to do with being a clean or “tidy” person.[/quote]

The only reason you think is it telling that my hypothetical is a male who cheats is that you don’t understand my hypothetical. It’s not a very complicated hypothetical, but a hypothetical is abstract, and abstract thinking is an early victim of Alzheimer’s. You really should get checked. Come back after the peanut butter test, and I’ll try to explain my hypothetical again, assuming you pass.
[quote=bearishgurl]
Might you yourself be struggling with both of these traits and so that’s why you used them in this discussion? Just wondering …. [/quote]

Might you be a murderer? Just wondering….

That makes as much sense as what you just said. Which is to say none at all.

But since you’re wondering, I’ll be happy to enlighten you. I have no problems with money. You don’t get a house like mine, the ability to pay it off at any time, and retire at 56, all on a government salary, if you’re not good with money. And I’ve been married 18 years and never cheated on my wife.
[quote=bearishgurl]

Based upon your posts and your own admission, you’re giving 97% in your relationship. Hope you’re getting your money’s worth :=0 [/quote]

Yeah, thanks for the marital advice, divorced lady.

Obviously you missed this from a previous post of mine:

[quote=zk] But, hey, to make a marriage work, you have to work together and compromise. I do most of the giving in this particular area, but she more than makes up for it in other areas. [/quote]
So, no, I’m not giving 97% in our relationship. I’m probably giving 35-45% overall. My wife is stronger than I am and able to give more. My wife is an amazing woman, and I’m extremely lucky to have her. We’ve been married 18 years and I’m happier than ever. We know how to make a marriage work. But you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you, bg.
[quote=bearishgurl]

WOW, zk, it looks like you may have dumped about $100K?? in your backyard so you could comfortably entertain your friends! If you don’t mind my asking, did that ~$100K come from your salary? Or maybe your spouse’s salary?? Is the property half yours (half yours and half your spouse’s)? [/quote]

I don’t see it in terms of who owns what percentage. It’s my family’s house.
[quote=bearishgurl]

At the time you were dumping big bucks into your BY, were you aware that your spouse would later insist on you only being able to entertain just six people at a time? [/quote]

It was discussed at the time, and it was a point of contention. Concessions and compromises were made, many of them going my way and having nothing to do with the yard or the entertaining. We worked it out. That’s what people in successful marriages do.

[quote=bearishgurl]

Must all your guests be married or would your spouse approve a guest who was single? [/quote]

I have single friends and they come over regularly.
[quote=bearishgurl]

And I’m wondering why you left the carpet in the house when you purchased it if you planned on entertaining large groups of people? [/quote]

We like carpet. It’s soft and warm.

[quote=bearishgurl]

Having entertained at home a lot in the past myself (up to 240 people), I WELL KNOW how much work it is before, during and after the party. But for the life of me, I don’t know why one co-owner would be able to successfully prohibit the other co-owner from doing what they expected to do with their property at the time of purchase and the time of installing those subsequent (expensive) improvements. [/quote]

I don’t see my wife as a “co-owner.” I don’t think anybody in a successful marriage does. And if you don’t understand give-and-take, it’s no wonder you’re divorced.

[quote=bearishgurl]

The issue, zk, is that you are correlating being “tidy” with criminal behavior. A person who possesses organizational skills and the motivation and perseverance to get things done (i.e. can properly manage their household) isn’t necessarily (or usually) a criminal, as you attest here. You’re bringing in lots of other criminal propensities which have nothing to do with being “tidy” or “clean.” Why you’re bringing these off-the-wall traits in here to compare with “messy people” is anybody’s guess. [/quote]

Even after I explained it to you, you still don’t get it. But, just to get an idea of what twisted reasoning you’re using, please show me where I correlated being tidy with criminal behavior, and what I said and how you construed it that you think I’ve “attested” that “a person who possesses organizational skills and the motivation and perseverance to get things done (i.e. can properly manage their household) [is] necessarily (or usually) a criminal.”
[quote=bearishgurl]

What you’ve posted here shows that you not only were raised as a “messy person” (which is ok if you have the a partner who freely accepts that trait), but that you are on a very short leash at home. [/quote]

Giving something (tidying up after myself when I don’t really care to, and not having 60 people over at a time) does not equate to being on “a very short leash.” Yes, there is some giving involved. And there’s also some taking involved. And there’s some compromise and some work. The payoff is a very happy and content family life, and I’ll take it.

[quote=bearishgurl]

If you are ok with that (after all you claim here that you’ve been through to get your property as you want it), then so am I.
[/quote]

Oh, yippee, I’m validated. Oh, wait, that was prickly bitchiness masquerading as support. Well, in that case what I meant was fuck you.
[quote=bearishgurl]

Far be it from me to judge the “tacit arrangement” you have with your “co-owner,” whether you are satisfied with it … or not.
[/quote]
And yet judge you do.

[Author]

Posts