Squrlz4Ever

Registered bored user

You lookin' at me?

squrlz4ever wrote:
Now that is fantastic!
squrlz4ever wrote:
skeeter01 I believe, in the example you're citing, the 240% is referring to the Sale Price of the ring ($87,500) vs the Seller's Cost ($36,500). I'm sympathetic to your confusion on this; percentages are tricky things and this chart makes things more confusing still by mixing the buyer's and seller's perspectives. The entire chart should have been written from the seller's perspective; what's described as "Worth" in this chart ought to be labeled "Seller's Cost" and what's labeled as "Cost of Ring" ought to be labeled "Sale Price."
squrlz4ever wrote:
squidbush Well, the issue of the obscene markup aside, a diamond engagment ring certainly isn't the most original way to go. Only problem is, a lot of women have grown up with advertising images dancing around in their heads, particularly when it comes to Prince Charming and The Big Day. When announcing an engagement to her female friends, she will almost certainly be expected to flash the rock on her finger--and if it isn't a sparkly diamond, she's likely going to be met with a quizzical "Okayyyyy... that's kind of different", which could get irksome real fast.

As much as it pains me to say this, in fact, the wiser course might be just to bite the bullet, spend the crazy sum, and go with convention. (Unless, of course, you are lucky enough to fall in love with a free-thinker or rebel.) The diamond industry has perfected the marketing messages and spread them far and wide, in all sorts of magazines, movies, websites, and TV shows that target teenage girls. By the time a male suitor arrives on the scene years later, her mind may already be made up.
squrlz4ever wrote:
mrsnowmeiser I'm definitely interested. I'll be looking that video up soon and giving it a watch. Thanks for the tip.
squrlz4ever wrote:
thezigrat I... uh... I... I somehow have lost my appetite. O.O
squrlz4ever wrote:
chickenfarts Hi, Etta! Good to know it's you. I hadn't heard about De Beers' actions in Arkansas before. Incredible. Yup, there are powerful interests at work and doing every thing they can to protect those profits. 
squrlz4ever wrote:
megrendel You make an excellent point there. I never thought about those two "best friend" sayings before.
squrlz4ever wrote:
fuad119 Oh-ho-ho! Ees funny because ees name of cartoon character! Oh-ho-ho! :)
squrlz4ever wrote:
melcervini Thanks for the nod, Mel.  :)
squrlz4ever wrote:
pleasestop Hear, hear!

And I just want to add that Marsha Blackburn, Republican congresswoman from Tennessee, makes me ill. What a dishonest, oily, sell-out she is. Ugh.

squrlz4ever wrote:
Wow. Great journalism. Nice post. One other fact for consideration: Contrary to what many people believe, diamonds are by no means the rarest gemstone. Not by a long shot. Emeralds, sapphires, and rubies (which are actually just a dark-red color variant of sapphires) are far more rare. In fact, it wasn't until the 20th century that diamond engagement rings became the norm. In the Victorian era, for example, engagement rings, if given at all, were far more likely to contain a gemstone other than a diamond. White diamonds were regarded as more valuable than topaz or pearls, say, but less valuable than emeralds, and due to the lack of color, a little boring. Indeed colorless diamonds were seen as kind of a "filler gem," best used to set off the rarer, colored ones.

What I'm saying here is that beyond the absurdly high markups that these jewelry stores are charging, the initial values of the diamonds themselves are inflated.

De Beers managed to create a diamond mystique through nothing more than effective marking ("A diamond is forever" and "A man should spend three times his gross monthly salary on a diamond engagement ring"). It was a carefully designed business strategy and they deliberately chose a gemstone that was common enough so that there would never be any risk of a shortage. In fact, the world's diamond mines produce an excess of stones and in order to keep the prices artificially inflated, the world's diamond marketers periodically sweep the raw diamonds off the market. There is probably enough of a diamond surplus in storage at this point that the diamond mines could all shut down for 30 years and there would be no difficulty whatsoever in keeping the jewelry industry supplied in that timeframe.

So, yeah: It's a bit of a sucker's game. Not that it's easily avoided. Wants and needs are often irrational, and if you're in love with a woman who has her heart set on a Tiffany solitaire engagement ring (and many of them do), you're stuck.

Bottom line: The diamond engagement ring business is part-and-parcel of the whole capitalist enterprise. Look at it long enough, and deep enough, and you may come to the same conclusion I have: At least half of all the wealth generated in capitalist economies is created through either exploitation, misrepresentation, or both. And no, I'm not saying I think capitalism is the enemy. It's a powerful, transformative force and, generally speaking, I wouldn't want to live in a society without it. But one should regard it with hefty doses of skepticism and wariness.

Okay, thanks for reading. End rant.
squrlz4ever wrote:
I think he's saying, "Hi, stanger. It's okay. You can look at my butt if you want."
squrlz4ever wrote:
mrteatime I'll be darned. I had no idea there were so many interesting facts surrounding "Jingle Bells."
squrlz4ever wrote:
cheeseb Thanks for a great comment. You took the article up to another level. My own observation is pretty simple: It is just beyond adorable how she supplies her own sound effect ("Aghhhhhh!") for her hug.
squrlz4ever wrote:
This was beautifully done and really had me laughing. I had no idea it was going to be satire, so the list of the ingredients at the beginning caught me totally by surprise.
squrlz4ever wrote:
AgamemnonTheGreat Point taken; no worries. Thanks for the response!
squrlz4ever wrote:
zeegrr Well, don't freak out on me, Zeegrr, but believe it or not, you're actually taking part in a real discussion right now. ZOMG. 
squrlz4ever wrote:
waldo863 Don't know anything about any broken wine boxes. Where are you getting that info?
squrlz4ever wrote:
How 'bout peak fur? Have we reached peak fur yet? Regardless, I'm not shaving. I'd go from fluffy and adorable to naked mole rat. Nope nope nope.
squrlz4ever wrote:
According to information I found online here and here, the number of rounds of golf played by Barack Obama in his first 100 days was 1. So far, Donald Trump has played 13 rounds (and he's got another month to go). Now remember: This is the guy who repeatedly mocked Obama for playing too much golf.

Honestly, this guy's a piece of work.
squrlz4ever wrote:
waldo863 Hmmm. I dunno. I was more sympathetic to your points earlier. Now that you're calling for the man to be fired and doing what seems like an awful lot of armchair quarterbacking, I'm not so sure. I can't agree with firing the man unless his behavior was in violation of store policy. (From what I'm seeing online, store policies differ: Some have a no-chase/no-detain policy, some don't.) To reiterate: She was committing a crime; he wasn't. And she was assaulting him; he wasn't assaulting her, he was holding onto property she was trying to steal and responding to her kicks and punches.

At the end of the day, no one was hurt and a shoplifter was arrested who probably would have gotten away with it otherwise.

I don't think this situation is as cut-and-dry as you do.
squrlz4ever wrote:
waldo863 ~considering~ I'm not sure. You raise some good points that I can't argue with. On the other paw, it seemed to me he was only holding the woman's purse, which contained the two shoplifted items. She's the one who refused to relinquish the purse and then started kicking and punching him, which means she's the one who committed assault.

Do we know if he was a security guard? He isn't dressed like the retail associates in the video. If he is a security guard, I'm inclined to think he did a good job; if he isn't, I think your points make sense.

Update: I see Fancy's identified the employee as a store manager. So now I'm leaning toward your view of the situation.
squrlz4ever wrote:
Never thought much about it, but it appears there's some kind of ratchet that's supposed to keep an escalator from sliding backward with gravity in the event that power is interrupted--and in this instance, that ratchet either broke off or never engaged at all.
squrlz4ever wrote:
melcervini Glad you liked it. Sounds like you've got a small farm of grateful critters at the Cervini homestead. :)
squrlz4ever wrote:
(1) That was just about the longest three minutes I've experienced. (2) The Rite Aid employee deserves a raise or, at the very least, a one-time bonus. (3) I agree with Fancy--unusually good camera work.