Page 300 of 311

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:45 am
by Lethal Interjection
So the news that Stephen Fry is to be wed to his boyfriend, who is 30 years his junior, popped up a bunch yesterday. I stupidly read the comments. So saddening. A lot of people posting comments or pictures that denoted 'disgusting'. Whether this is because it is a homosexual marriage, or because of the relatively large age difference, I'm not sure. I think some made one or the other (or both) clear, but not most of the ones I read/saw.

I guess it is particularly saddening since it is pretty clear that these people have no information about Fry. He's an atheist* homosexual who abstained sexually** from age 22-38. This isn't a man who up and marries any young tart who comes his way. This is a guy who is rather discerning in his relationships.


*I say atheist because I've known of a few homosexuals who have been sexually abstinent** because of the conflict between the 'sin' of homosexuality and their Christianity and the personal struggle there-in. Fry doesn't have that struggle, he just values relationship over sex, I guess.
**I never thought that the celi bate word-filter I called for because of Ahmet would come back and bite me in the ass.

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:22 am
by DonRetrasado
I guess at the age of 27, it's basically up to you if you want to marry someone 30 years older than you. I think it's a little odd (think of what the neighbours will say!!) and can't see myself marrying a 50-something woman, but hey, they're adults, they do what they want.

Or, in other words:
Image

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:14 pm
by Astrogirl
Lethal Interjection wrote:**I never thought that the celi bate word-filter I called for because of Ahmet would come back and bite me in the ass.

Why did you call for that word filter?

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:46 pm
by Lethal Interjection
Astrogirl wrote:
Lethal Interjection wrote:**I never thought that the celi bate word-filter I called for because of Ahmet would come back and bite me in the ass.

Why did you call for that word filter?


Ahmet called himself that in damn near every post he made for the first few months. I'd say it was a badge of honour, but the way he wore it didn't bring much honour to it. He is/was Muslim, and was a braggart about it to the point where it came of as kind of a pick-up line.
Plus I felt it wasn't the right word, either. Sadness and loneliness, to me anyways, is a long term personal pledge. Not like abstinence, which can also be a long-term pledge but with a defined end-date. And, again, I feel that either is diminished greatly by advertisement. And I'm reasonably certain that Fry didn't make his public until after it was over (whether his was abstinence or Sadness and loneliness, I'm not certain).

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 5:49 am
by DonRetrasado
Lethal Interjection wrote:Sadness and loneliness, to me anyways, is a long term personal pledge.

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:13 pm
by Lethal Interjection
So Target is pulling out of Canadia, closing all of its stores.
I'm not at all surprised, based on economy experts saying that it should almost a year ago from a financial perspective. I guess they thought they'd give it one more Christmas?
Sadly I know a few people who will be laid off because of it. It does mean good things for Walmart, but I have strong intentions on leaving the company in the next few months.
I do wonder how those stores will be filled, to be honest. We had a Future Shop next to our Walmart that shut down 2 years ago or so that hasn't had a tenant since (aside from a seasonal Halloween store for a month in 2013). Existing big-box stores seem to have hit their saturation rate, and there aren't any new-comers. I'm sure Walmart will purchase a few of the 133 closing stores, but I don't imagine it will be a big number.

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:22 pm
by Liriodendron_fagotti
I just saw that. Apparently it would take till 2021 to become profitable. I saw some complaints that their stock was pretty poor - e.g. didn't have a lot of stuff Canadian shoppers had seen in Targets in Buffalo and other border cities.

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:15 am
by DonRetrasado
Target just constructed a huge outdoor mall that was a 15-minute bus ride from my house, so yeah I dunno what they can do with that land/where I'm going to get cheap jeans. This is Toronto, though, so it'll probably just become condos.

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:30 am
by smiley_cow
Yeah, I can't say I'm surprised, but I'm pretty disappointed because I think the store of that type we have left here now is Walmart, and I really hate shopping at Walmart (mostly the Walmart here, because it's way up on the north hill, which is a pain to drive to, and the parking lot is always horrible/crowded). I hope something else tries to move in in its place, but I have no idea who that would be.

Lethal Interjection wrote:I do wonder how those stores will be filled, to be honest. We had a Future Shop next to our Walmart that shut down 2 years ago or so that hasn't had a tenant since (aside from a seasonal Halloween store for a month in 2013). Existing big-box stores seem to have hit their saturation rate, and there aren't any new-comers. I'm sure Walmart will purchase a few of the 133 closing stores, but I don't imagine it will be a big number.


Our current Target store actually used to be a Walmart before they opened a larger location on the outskirts of town. We're already talking about what a pain it's going to be for it to close down for the other stores in the area, people who live around there, etc. I'm kind of annoyed at Target in general for buying Zellers in the first place just to eventually shut it all down.

Also worth mentioning, unlike what I'm hearing about other Targets, ours always had people around, and seemed to be pretty profitable. There's definitely a local demand for a store like that actually inside the city, so this is all pretty annoying. They never were properly stocked here either though.

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:55 am
by Lethal Interjection
smiley_cow wrote:Also worth mentioning, unlike what I'm hearing about other Targets, ours always had people around, and seemed to be pretty profitable. There's definitely a local demand for a store like that actually inside the city, so this is all pretty annoying. They never were properly stocked here either though.


I wonder if this is mostly the case in semi-urban neighbourhoods? Those that are outside major urban hubs but still draw a relatively urban crowd?
One of my friends who works at Target in Bowmanville, or wherever the location is (but which might be described as a sub-suburb of Toronto) said that it is both busy and has a vibrant and pleasant work environment. So I feel for him.
I also know a few people from those types of sub-suburban neighborhoods who swore by Target. Whether that is only philosophically or something more, I'm not sure.

That said, the Targets I have been to have been virtual ghost-towns.

The problem, as I see it, is that Target established itself in Canadia as a slightly more upscale Walmart. Which is fine. The problem is that they did so with higher prices (fine, I guess) but with carrying a lot of the same brands that Zellers did before Target bought them out. Which, frankly, didn't fly for most shoppers. If you are going to be a nicer, cleaner Zellers, you best present products and prices that match that, rather than presenting a 'boutique Walmart'.
This plus the more publicized and economic problem of rolling out your brand in a new country while simultaneously re-inventing your supply chain management. Which ended up resulting in not only higher prices but emptier shelves.

I visited Target Canadia on two occasions.
First was a look-see. They'd been in Canadia for short time and there was a store in between "social interaction A" and "social interaction B" where the distance/time ratio of heading home didn't make sense. It was nice enough. Good clean layout (as a newly opened store should be). I spent 20 minutes or so in the store. Compared prices on a few items that I might've bought and found Target wasn't worth it.
Second was a third choice for a particular Christmas gift a year ago. Walmart didn't have it. Best Buy didn't either. Target was next door to Best Buy so I thought I'd give it a shot. They had the item, and in the price range I expected paying, so I bought it.
Though ultimately, in those two visits, I actually spent more at the in-store Starbucks' than I did on any actual Target items.

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:15 pm
by Kaharz
The Targets in the US tend to have similar prices to Walmart for comparable items. I vaguely remember one study that found Target's prices were a few tenths of a percent higher. One of the big differences I have noticed though is that while they both have cheap stuff, Walmart usually has an additional really cheap option. But that stuff is usually not worth buying unless you really need it and really can't afford to spend a little more. I bought a pair of their $10ish dollar jeans for work, and they are cut really weird, shrank a lot even though I washed them on cold and dried in low heat and the stitching started coming out almost immediately. They were way, way lower quality than the $20 jeans and $20 jeans aren't exactly high quality. The other big difference is Target doesn't carry as much stuff as Walmart. Walmart usually carries more home repair and auto stuff and way more sporting goods stuff.

But the Targets I've been to in the US are always well stocked and their stores are more environmentally pleasant than Walmart tends to be. They feel more like a department store than a warehouse store. If they often had bare shelves and noticeably higher prices on the same stuff, I'd never go there.

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:27 pm
by Liriodendron_fagotti
The feel of Targets here is definitely nicer than a Walmarts. I don't have much experience with either because my county banned all bulk chain stores in that vein. My family does go to a Target ~20 minutes away for some things, often clothes. I actually got a nice-ish pair of corduroys there and was asked by a cashier at a hippie grocery in my town where I got them. When I said "Target", the dismay on his face was instantaneous.

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:23 pm
by Liriodendron_fagotti
Sarah Palin is pretty funny. I hope she runs in 2016, if only to watch the Daily Show segments on her.

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 1:43 pm
by Liriodendron_fagotti
Police stop mass shooting in Halifax.

At least two suspects had intended "to go to a public venue... with a goal of opening fire to kill citizens, and then themselves", police said.

Police officials said the motive did not appear to be terrorism, without providing further details.

Okay. I bet they had big beards and turbans, too.

Re: I read the news today, oh boy

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:27 pm
by DonRetrasado
Not quite, if you read between the lines from other articles: http://www.cbc.ca/news/Canadia/nova-scot ... -1.2957685 (remember to fix canadia)

Some choice quotes:
Neither Brennan nor MacKay would characterize the alleged plot as terrorism. Brennan said the suspects "had some beliefs and were willing to carry out violent acts against citizens."

He didn't say what the beliefs were, other than that "they were not culturally based."

It appears at least one of the suspects was part of an online blogging group.

When asked if the suspects had "Columbine" beliefs, referring to the 1999 shooting at Colorado's Columbine High School, MacKay responded, "This appeared to be a group of murderous misfits ... prepared to wreak havoc and mayhem on our community."

So they weren't religious extremist terrorists by the sounds of it, they were probably just a bunch of goofy misfits planning to shoot up a mall.

They "had some beliefs and were willing to carry out violent acts against citizens" and they get called "misfits" in the news. How does that not count as terrorism?