Boosted52405

1 hour ago, Abelardo said:

A few I can think of:
Amores Perros
Santa Sangre
Mulholland Dr.
Kids
Pan's Labyrinth

Yep this thread made me instantly think of Kids, what a f'd up movie.

Bump

Bump

Bump

50 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

It wasn't that long ago that a Lincoln Towncar was my dream car. I hope Lincoln brings that nameplate back at some point.

 

The mid-2000s Towncar is beautiful in my eyes, with a very reliable drivetrain.

They've brought back the Continental now as their flagship and boy, it is gorgeous.  They've got some limited # ones with suicide doors too, I believe.  Don't trust their newer engines though, I believe they ecoboosted that one too.

1 hour ago, Tabonga said:

As long as it was not a 1981!  Mrs. Tabonga's mother had one and it was a nightmare.  Virtually all of the Cadillacs that year* had a godawful engine that had a miserable variable cylinder system where the engine would operate on either 8, 6 or 4 cylinders in an effort to save fuel**.  As a result the thing would constantly change the number of  cylinders being used according to some arcane mystic formula the computer (that term is being used generously since it really wasn't up to the task - I think an abacus would have performed better) conjured up.  As a result it had absolutely no acceleration which was extremely problematic when you wanted to perform a task as simple as merging into traffic.  The digital readouts would not give you a reading as to how much gas was actually in the tank - it gave you an estimate of the range you had - so you would be plugging along on 4 cylinders and you had say a couple of hundred miles - if and when you managed to get the behemoth to run on 8 cylinders the estimated fuel range would drop to say under  50 miles. So you never knew how much fuel was in (or more importantly perhaps not in) the tank.  I think Cadillac replaced some engines or offered to disconnect the system so the cars ran on 8 cylinders only.  A more miserable vehicle I have never driven.

*The Sevilles could be ordered with a reportedly equally problematic V-8 diesel.

**The beast got terrible terrible mileage anyway.

 

 

What do you know, my '11 Chevy Tahoe has that technology and it still sucks (c'mon GM).  Mine hops from 8cyl to 4cyl and many enthusiasts disable that feature to increase the engine reliability (I still need to look into that...).

One question to ask - do you want the vehicle to run good during the warranty period, or also after?

Kia/Hyundai unfortunately do not have a good track record with high mileage vehicles.  I play pokemon go with a local player who is a mechanic for them, he spends the majority of his days doing full engine swaps that are under warranty.  I made a comment to him about how crazy this is, and he goes "well hey the customer doesn't have to pay for it".

For Chrysler, I'd be hell bent on giving my money to a company that is being whored around and bought from company to company.  The only thing they are doing remotely right as a whole is Jeep and Ram.  Chrysler only exists because of Jeep and Ram, they have been doing soooooo bad this last decade or two.

It still shocks me that Chevy and Ford left the minivan game a long time ago.  I've grown to also not like GM's quality of things, and I had a 2015 Ford Flex that had way too many problems under warranty.

I would absolutely stick to Toyota and Honda, and avoid CVT transmissions at all costs. And do the maintenance by the book.

If you're just wanting something covered under warranty then maybe take a chance at the other crap.

Bump

With respect to electricians (reference to sparky?), I quickly think of @MrWunderful.  If that is the profession in question, I bet he would have some great feedback.  Haven't seen him post in a long time, but I've been MIA for quite a while too.

I've worked in IT all of my adult life and one thing that is constant in that environment is change.  With all the companies (3 - 16 years) I've worked for, there are constant reorgs and layoffs.  It's kind of exhausting having a family and mortgage working in this kind of environment.  Outsourcing is heavy in this world and you can get shuffled all over the nation if you get into the contracting area of IT.  It does in general provide an opportunity to work from home though, which is a massive plus.

I only point these perspectives out because working in the trades, as an outsider, seems to be more stable - however I could totally be wrong.  A lot of those professions also have unions which have benefits too, I believe.  I've certainly pondered the what-ifs and wonder if I should have tried to be an electrician or something comparable.

At this stage of my life, single dad with kiddo half the time, and a mortgage - all i want is stability.

Bump

2 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

Just wondering how old you are?  This is the first time in my entire life I've ever heard anyone say this, so I'm really curious as to your background with these films...

I'm 36 and did not watch the originals growing up, resulting in this opinion (and also why I'm sure so many are passionate about the originals).

I watched SW off and on growing up but never got into it until I, II, and III were already on DVD.  After reading several debates online on which order to watch 1-6, I did give IV-VI a fair chance and watched them first before I-III.  They were soooooooo much more engaging.

Prequels, I just feel they were REALLY well done with respect to the main story.  The evolution of Anakin and the surrounding elements were excellent.

Sequels were excellent too, but they get a little out of hand with the use of Jedi powers.  Not a huge fan of the handling of Luke throughout the sequels at all.

Both were better than IV, V, IV...in my opinion (I don't think they held up all that great).

Side note - Mandolorian is super enjoyable, especially the end of S2.  However, wish they'd quit repeating the same elements in almost every single episode.

Bump

Wow, did not know a single dice is called a die.  Lol, always been dice for one or many in my brain.

55 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Just curious, who is more in the wrong, the OP or the mum, and why? Let's discuss.

It's interesting that you'd like to instigate a separate conversation that the OP did not intend, the issue is that it's always going to come down to opinion on social expectations, since we've exhausted the legal aspects.  The OP was asking if he was over the line, so you can point the finger all over if you wish, not sure what you'll gain other to try and argue further.  I'm not really interesting in debating on who was "more" wrong, but here are some more forward-thinking ways to look at this.

1 - the Mom should have masked her kid and kept her kid at a distance proactively, given the obvious (pandemic) and out of respect of other park families.  I agree it's mind numbing she didn't do this.  Had she done this, all of this would have been avoided.

2 - the OP should have asked (not demand) the Mom if the kid had a mask, and if not, to respect distancing practices given the obvious (pandemic).  Beyond that, there is next to no entitlement.  Calling the cops for this manageable situation would be a notable waste of their time.

Both parents have wrongs in my opinion, but ask yourself, what are the kids going to remember the most?  They are going to remember the yelling, arguing, middle fingers, and that shit sticks with kids.  To allow an argument to occur with a random stranger in public is ridiculous IMO, you have no idea the mental health of strangers so do yourself a favor and avoid this kind of stuff (especially with little kids involved).  It's not about backing down or being a pussy, it's being smart.

Of course, this is all of my personal opinion.

56 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Funniest bit is the mum came to him,not the other way around 

Actually no, funny enough, she went to a public park where people are expected to co-exist.  The OP has little to no entitlement in this situation, in which you're implying.

9 hours ago, darkchylde28 said:

Yes, two, and to address some posts that you made later, I've had a 4 year old and am on my way to having a second and didn't have any issues explaining things to my son when he was 4.  You seem to be missing all of the attitude implied by how @JamesRobot phrased what she spoke to him.  "Then Karen pipes up indignantly," "Karen, defiantly," "Karen, 'Well I'm a nurse ...'"  All these speak to her being aggressive in her speech to him, immediately upon her kid coming back to tell her that he can't play near OP's kids without a mask.

As a parent, and knowing my son, I keep an eye out on what he's doing at the park/playground/etc. and will actively call him down the moment I see him doing something he shouldn't be.  Fortunately, he's always been generally good whenever we were in a public setting like that, but not always, and sometimes, when he didn't immediately listen, I'd have to go extract him from the fun and let him sit down for a couple of minutes in time out for not listening.

Knowing what I do about the social distancing guidelines, I'd have been watching my kids like a hawk, especially when I saw another family nearby, and would have immediately called either kid down for going too near other folks.  The mom in this clearly didn't.  If she couldn't control her kid, she shouldn't take him out in public--pure and simple.  In the few instances where one or the other of my kids has had a meltdown in or going into public places, they either got removed immediately or we didn't go.  There's zero reason to subject other people, parents or not, to my kids' bad behavior, and I expect the same of other parents (whether it always happens that way or not) .

So...the official legal mandates from the state of Colorado are a joke?  Why, exactly?  How are these legally binding rules any more humorous than the ones telling us other inconvenient things, like don't steal from people, or don't shoot the people who make you mad?  Since it seems you didn't read through the link very thoroughly, if at all, here are some excerpts:

How will this order be enforced?  Colorado law requires compliance with executive and public health orders; therefore, not following these orders is breaking the law.  (Emphasis mine)

How can local law enforcement or local public health agencies enforce public health orders?  Under Colorado law, counties and local public health agencies have the authority to administer and enforce an order. The state is recommending that local law enforcement and/or local public health agencies first reach out to the entity to seek voluntary compliance. However, local county attorneys or district attorneys can bring any civil or criminal action requested by the local public health director for a local violation of an order. A county attorney representing a local public health agency can seek a judge’s order in state court to force an individual or business to immediately comply with an order.

That sounds fairly serious to me and definitely worth obeying seeing as specific penalties haven't been provided, but the wording implies that the local public health director has carte blanche to lay down whatever civil or criminal penalty they see fit for violation of the order.

As far as OP working with the mom, what was there to work with her on?  He told the kid he couldn't play near his kids without a mask, then repeated the same to the mom when she asked about it, clearly irritated.  She then kept yelling back at him in an angry tone and toward the end tried to play the BS "but I'm a nurse" card, which is either nonsense or she ought to be let go from her position for being terrible at it (from a safety viewpoint), as public health workers, especially in Colorado, should have seen plenty of what this virus can and has done to people.  She started with an angry tone and kept it up while OP started out calm and only escalated in his reactions as she did.  I stand by my statement that she instigated and in whatever poor taste OP's dual finger salute may have been, I can understand how he got there with circumstances (both world-/state-wide as well as in his immediate vicinity) being what they were.

Holy wall of text.  I'll keep it simple man, just because you would control your child in a particular way does not mean you can EXPECT another stranger to control their kid the same way.  Control what you can control, hence my feelings that if the OP was uncomfortable he had the liberty to get up and leave.  You'll continue to be disappointed in life if you expect people in life to behave like you - again, this is a public shared setting, this kind of stuff will happen frequently. 

The kid did not have to wear a mask, per the law.  The whole forum agrees with how the Mom should have behaved (mask & distance), but it doesn't justify the resulting behavior of the OP.  As for what the Mom said, we weren't provided any actual detail, yet the OP even agrees he went 0-100 in a matter of seconds.  What's wrong with being the bigger person and leaving, I ask?

As for your link that I said was a joke, absolutely it is - it's a State policy that is far more of a PR move than actuality.  Again, can you show me a single instance of it being enforced, let alone regarding children distancing?  "Taking criminal action" haha that's simply a public threat, the cops are not in place to go around massaging everyone's shoulders for every little civil dispute.  If you think otherwise, you should definitely reconsider.

As for how did I expect the OP to work with the Mom?  I've already shared that in vivid detail about 2 or 3 times in this thread.  It's extremely simple, you cannot go to a stranger in a public space and demand something of them.  You can be civil, friendly, and ask them to do something out of respect, but they don't have to.  Come to me as a stranger and demand something of me and I'll laugh at you.  The mature solution would have been to ask her to keep distance, if not, take it upon yourself to leave.

@fcgameralso, I think an argument you're webbing together is my feedback of 1) parents acting in unity in a park, and 2) strangers talking to your kids - these are 2 very distinct things.  The unity piece is the allowance of strangers kids to run around together, however, it is not common or expected that other parents talk or even interact all at all with your kid, if that makes sense.  Purely supervision on the unity front, again pre-pandemic days.  Of course, if a lil kiddo biffs it and needs help or something, I can see strangers jumping up to help.  Perhaps that helps a bit on that point you're blending together as twofold.

9 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Not likely. She was the "offending" party of the two, and her actions show that she had no shred of concern about respecting anyone else's feelings.

You don't know if you don't try.  Everyone has different opinions on the use of masks, especially when they aren't legally required on kids in public.  You can't expect that everyone views life the same as you.  When interacting with a stranger, start friendly before going to 100 - demanding something from someone is extremely different than asking them to do something out of respect.

1 minute ago, fcgamer said:

Lol I go to the park all the time dude.

You cannot and won't address the point because in doing so you would have to place the fault on the mom.

You state the mom did nothing wrong and that the parents as a loose unit all keep an eye out. Yet you also state that you would be upset if your kid was talking to a stranger, and even more upset if the stranger told your kid to do something, like wear a mask .

But the problem is twofold. A, the same stranger you would take issue with is the same part of the group that keeps an eye out, and then secondly, it's your kid making and initiating the contact. Please explain to me how you can have it both ways, how that's gonna work. The simplest answer is to monitor your own kid, is it not? And maybe also give a lesson about talking to strangers or not. You disagree?

I will happily address any point you'd like to discuss, I still don't feel you are understanding.  The kid in question did not come up and talk to strangers, he went within a few feet of the OP and his kid - here is the exact text from the OP "her kid comes within a couple feet looking like he wants to play."  This is 100% normal behavior at a park for a 4yo.  Again, to explain this I really feel you haven't been to a busy park with kids.  As long as the Mom was supervising her kid in this situation, I still feel the only thing she did wrong was send him in unmasked.  You seem to feel she was negligent for letting her kid get close to anther kid/family on a playground, I fully disagree.

The unity piece I am referring to is how parents are able to simply monitor their kids versus helicopter them at a park.  I am not saying that all the parents are running around swinging each others kids, they simply allow the kids to run and play together (pre-pandemic days).

7 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

To a degree.  While I should've disengaged, I also didn't go out of my way.  From my perspective, the fight came to me.  Sure I have some entitlement regarding my children.  Who doesn't?  And I don't even really care that mom showed up with no mask.  It's a very large park with plenty of open space and she intentionally kept her distance.  However, I did use that as a point to antagonize because I felt attacked.  

 

I was pretty calm at this point.  Certainly not barking orders.  Though I should have chosen my words better.  I really should have said that he can't play with us.  Her boy was ultimately looking for that approval from me. 

Well you both certainly have limited equal entitlement at a park playground, it's when you fail to co-exist and/or not respect each other that the issues will begin.  I definitely agree that the situation began when the 2nd family arrived, but once the conflict arose, your details really paint that you pushed it aggressively versus trying to discuss it with her.  I am guessing that if you respectfully asked her to keep a distance versus tell her what she needed to follow, the altercation may have been avoided.

1 minute ago, fcgamer said:

Nope, you missed my point. If the mom would have been doing her job as a parent to begin with, there's no reason the kid would have been talking with JamesRobot, or any other stranger. I'd reckon JamesRobot probably didn't want the encounter, and likewise, I personally don't know any grown adult who likes talking with random children. That's the situation at hand.

Random kid comes up to JamesRobot, essentially forcing him into an interaction with a child stranger. JamesRobot states that he doesn't want the potential Covid-19 carrier to be playing with his kids, unmasked. The mom gets bent .

By your admission, the mom is on the defensive because the maskless wonder is talking to a stranger, JamesRobot. But why exactly is that occuring? Because the mom isn't supervising her kid. If I had kids, I wouldn't want them to be talking to random strangers, but then again, to make sure that didn't happen, I'd have to supervise them as well.

This has nothing to do with random kid on kid action.

It certainly appears you haven't been to a public park with child.  Parents don't really helicopter their kids, they let them run along the playground as it's intended and supervise.  It almost feels like an unspoken unity of parents all keeping an eye across the playground - that's my experience in the midwest at least.  When they are really little, yes, the parents will navigate to play/teach/keep from falling however. 

He even said, the family showed up, she sat on a bench, he went to play and simply made his way over to the OP.  The only thing I would have expected differently from the Mom up to that point was to equip the kid with a mask, and perhaps even proactively ask the kid to keep a distance - but that is not traditionally how parks work and your mileage will vary based on parent to parent during the pandemic.

51 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

I don't have kids, but here's my two cents on the above:

I honestly don't feel comfortable talking with random children, despite being a school teacher and living in a country where child molestation and violent crimes are both practically unheard of. 

That being said, I find it very hypocritical of those parents who get on the defensive when, as you put it, a stranger is talking to their kid and then subsequently is telling them what to do. I mean, it should have never gotten to that point byo begin with, imo, as the parent should be doing his or her job as a parent, and part of that would be to not have your young child talking with random strangers, especially in a country where child molestation and stranger danger are in the forefront of everyone's mind. I mean, am I really such out of touch in the matter? If you got such an issue with "B" , then you should be doing your part to begin with.

I put it in the same category as parents who get bent out of shape when their child falls over at school and bruises his or her knee minorly while playing, yet the same parents hit the kid regularly at home or barely do anything more than feed the kid to take care of him or her. It just really messes with my mind in a way I can't comprehend, maybe someone can explain it.

That completely misses my point, especially in the environment/situation being discussed here.  I am not referring to a negligent parent letting their 4yo run the streets etc.

This is a public park where kids (complete strangers of kids) traditionally run around with one another and have a good ol' time pre-pandemic days.  Parents keep close by and keep an eye on them, generally standing back or sitting on a bench.  I've done it countless times.  However, when/if a stranger talks to your kid in that environment, it will absolutely put you in the concerned/offensive state - I am sure 99% of parents would agree.  Then, to go as far as the stranger telling my kid what he can and cannot do, you better believe it would get the hair on my back to stand up.

22 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

Really I'm just using the term to illustrate and add a little flavor.  But according to the terms:

Entitlement - She felt she shouldn't need to wear a mask in public despite local law and that her child can play with whomever despite the fact that the other party expressly does not want to.

Selfish - No regard for others.  Again by not wearing a legally mandated mask in public (really for the protection of others) and that she can't respect me enough to leave me alone.

Desire to complain - She immediately started shouting me down across the park.  Not initially of course, but because of the perceived slight directed at her child.

Willing to risk or demean others to achieve her ends - Shouting at a total stranger in a park is demeaning and clearly risky for her own wellbeing as well as her child's. 

Interesting, using your own terms quoted above, can you deny acting in all these same manners? 

One other thing I'll share, and then I'll quit defending the Mom, although she totally could have avoided all this by masking her kid from the get go.  For any parent involved in this discussion...how would/do you feel when a stranger talks to your toddler, let alone tells them what to do?  It puts them instantly on the defensive, if not a protective/offensive state of mind. 

With the above in mind, I can only assume this occurred, and then the OP essentially barked an order at her ("he must wear a mask to play near us").    This is the point where I feel instigation started, instead of attempting to talk civilly to the parent and asking to keep their distance.  Again, Mom totally should have masked the kid, never argued that.  However, the points of entitlement/selfishness etc, play a role here on both sides.

OP - I absolutely respect you for posting this on a public forum looking for feedback, I assume a large percent of people would not take it that far out of self-reflection.  Hopefully you'll restrain the guns in public in front of kids next time :).