PLFXpert

What is the point of the fancy wine-bottle openers? I keep getting these as gifts (and keep donating them to our Humane Society). I am not sure who is dumber: Me for finding the fancy ones cumbersome and often difficult to use, or everyone else for not being able to figure out my waiters' corkscrew? Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

While I expected the inevitable "dick in a box" response, I still had hopes for something more original...or at least a bigger box. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

The best freebie I ever got (at a real estate new development party) was a rubber jar opener. I use that thing all the time and there is the realtor's name and number right on it. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I have been known to be just as excited about the box the thing comes in as the thing itself. My cat shares this obsession with me. We both enjoy a nice box. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

What is the point of advertising a sale if everything is an "exclusion"? Why not just say, "Sale on this thing and that thing, but nothing else."? It is more verbose, but honesty over brevity has always been my MO. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

Me. I hate paying shipping; I shop a LOT online. I prefer online shopping and make the majority of my purchases online. I hate going into a store and being swooned over. I understand wanting a discount. I rarely pay retail (hate that, too). The difference with free shipping is it is part of the overall sale/package on the gear store end of business. And personally I would rather ask for free shipping than a discount on a life-saving pack job. I would guess the amount is about the same, but free shipping is a more common practice/easy to execute request from a business-standpoint. If all else fails (this rarely happens, exception being Louis Vuitton ), and I pay retail for a large purchase, I ask for "extras" that can be thrown in--be it shipping, or accessories or cleaning/care/item protection products or a discount card toward a future purchase. Sometimes I end up with all of the above totaling more than a 10% discount would have been in the first place. It all depends on what is easiest/best for the store at that time. Maybe they have extra inventory of the things they give me free, or whatever. There is a saying, "you catch more flies with honey"... Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

Whatever floats your boat. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

What about free shipping? Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

What is the point of snorkeling if you do not want to get your hair wet? Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

immunity Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

latex Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

deconstructed food If I wanted to make my own meal, I would have stayed home. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

FWIW, I voted "Abigail Leigh". It rolls of the tongue nicely, and "Abigail" means "beauty and brains".

What did the shoes say to the pants? "What's up britches?!" Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

Economic Left/Right: -1.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38 I took it quickly, and would have guessed I would be further right in the economic category and closer north in the latter. May take it again later. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." One of my favorites.

sea insects Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

And be sure to keep it up once you are feeling better. I popped out my shoulder twice in high school (varsity volleyball). It has never happened since, and I stopped a couple of my usual stretches/routine many years ago because it started to "hurt when I do this" and I so I stopped doing it. I woke up a few months ago with a major shoulder/neck/upper back pain (but had full range of motion/no limited use of anything because of it). I started doing the stretches again even though it cracked/hurt. I have kept it up and it still cracks once in a while, but it does not hurt anymore. Lesson learned. I should note, I do yoga regularly and am always stretching and working my arm/shoulder and am in very good shape/strength/balance, but I was not doing the specific stretches I was previously recommended to do after popping out my shoulder. I do them daily now. I definitely do not want to go through another two weeks of that irritating/nothing-helps-or-makes-it-feel-better/cannot relax sort of pain ever again. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I am not sure the "better safe than sorry" method is a bad basis to make a decision or "intolerant" in-and-of itself from a business-owner standpoint. Let me attempt to explain: I am a DZO and after seeing a TI applicant's name on the sex offender registry, I ask questions and determine it was a minor offense and he/she is of no danger to my staff/customers. Later "something" of an unwanted sexual-in-nature offense occurs by said TI to a customer. Customer presses charges and it is fact that I, as the DZO, was aware this person was a registered sex offender. It would not matter what "minor offense" he/she was registered for. I knowingly hired a registered sex offender and he/she committed a sex crime against one of my customers. I am a busy DZO and short of background check, checking the sex offender registry and an interview, if I cannot determine most certainly within that scope the applicant is safe to hire as a TI, I do not hire. Asking me to dive further than that is asking for special privileges. What we have now is what I as the DZO has to work with. Just like not every registered offender on today's list is of a danger to society, not every peeing, streaking or 18/16-year-old registered offender is innocent (just like not everyone caught peeing, streaking or sleeping with their younger S/O is required to register). Again, I need to be able to determine within the previously-mentioned scope whether-or-not I want to hire someone. No special privileges because one may have been delt an unfair hand. Now, I have previously conceded there is a need for improved guidelines as to what constitutes a sexual offender dangerous or potentially dangerous to society. A more refined list would certainly be more useful and I would advocate for that all day long. And just to be clear: My example is not meant to advocate for a mandate that all DZOs adopt a "better safe than sorry" policy. They can run their businesses as they see fit within the confines of the law. Also to be clear: I am speaking from a business-owner standpoint in which I am liable and responsible for the safety of my staff and customers. From a personal standpoint, I can determine whatever at my own risk to me and me alone to hire to maintain the grounds at one of my personal properties or whatever I need/see fit. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

Freudian slip? Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

Again, the DZO asks questions and decides whether or not they are satisfied the perp is of no danger to his/her customers and hires or not. It is not perfect, but neither is the registry we have concluded here. And again, the disagreement among responders is whether after said DZO is satisfied the registered sex offender is of no risk is it OK to then hire as a TI, or better to utilize the "better safe than sorry" method (because the perp may have plead down or whatever)? You have made it clear you are of the "better safe than sorry" opinion. I am, too. But, I cannot tell a DZO how to run his/her own business as long as he/she is operating within the law. And if I am a DZO (I am not), I may feel bad for the streaking perp I turn away, but my job is to protect my customers to the best of my knowledge based on all sources and information available to me. Better safe than sorry. Having said that, I would still advocate for a better, more useful registry since at the very least--from what I gathered in 30 minutes of searching/reading--it stands to be greatly improved upon. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

The thread has taken a tangent from the original post, imo. Whether or not the registration lists are effective in the first place is another argument. To Andreya's point: Since the list is what is available at this point, would it not be wise for a DZO to consult it before hiring a registered sex offender as a TI? I think most responders have agreed it would be wise to check and ask questions. Disagreements among responders are some would still hire after questions meet satisfaction that risk is none (because so many were just peeing and streaking) and others would not hire regardless. The latter seem argue it is not possible to know for sure and better safe than sorry. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I read that article and the Georgia Sex Offender Registration Review Board study. The study was a sample of the 17,000 and while it did conclude 5% were clearly dangerous, it also concluded another 30% were potentially threatening. Also on Forbes, an article to Andreya's point of appealing to have one's name removed from the list: Sex Offenders and the Human Rights Act Having said that, I am not arguing against your point. In about 30 minutes, I skimmed a lot of "research" and "studies" for and against the sex offender registry. I did not find anything conclusive or convincing either way. Nor, did I find any hardcore percentages of "serious" vs. "non-serious" offenders (if you have, would be grateful if you would provide). For example, your Forbes article was an opinion post--hardly a call to action to dismember the registry. What I did conclude, imo, is if--in fact--there are a disproportionate number of non-serious offenders listed to threatening and clearly dangerous, then certainly there stands to be great improvement on the laws which require one to register. I can agree it would be of much better use if it were limited to those offenders people really need to be aware of. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

Thank you for the clarification. There was so much back-and-forth of grey-area exceptions vs. Andreya's general rule-of-thumb that I skimmed and must have missed where the conversation turned from hiring offenders to certifying them. I appreciate Andreya's pov for what it is: general rules-of-thumb are generally a good thing. Not sure it is the USPA's responsibility, though. That is a weird one. On one hand we check backgrounds for many things before handing out certifications, licenses, etc. But, in this case the TI certification is more like the resume and not an acceptance of application to do the work so...then I would say as long as registered sex offenders can go to school and get their doctorate degree, why not a TI certification? Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

I am curious what percentage of registered sex offenders listed did not commit a "serious" crime? This seems to be the main argument against the registry and/or how an employer reacts toward hiring (or not) someone listed on that registry. A quick search revealed less than one-tenth of one percent of registered sex offenders are listed for peeing in public (in plain view of someone). How often would the leaping gnome turn away someone who simply went streaking vs. someone who committed a more "serious" crime if he turned away them all just to be safe? Is the argument here to not check the registry at all before hiring because there are some streaking, peeing stragglers in the mix, or is it to check, but ask questions and make an informed decision? I can appreciate the latter pov and just want to clarify. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

Agree, that sounds awful and inhumane. When a doctor botches a surgery resulting in severe and painful consequences for the patient (or even death), we do not ban all surgeries of that kind going forward. Now, if most doctors were making the same mistake with similar outcomes, we may then look at alternative methods. Perhaps not the best analogy since one's goal is saving a life and the other ending it. But, I believe both should be as precise and painless as possible. For those responders, but how certain are you those responders are representative of the entire majority who support the death penalty? For me, if it is humane and not anti-constitutional or whatever, and the majority supports it then the death penalty is not near the top of my list of immediate concerns for change. It seems to me a lot of the responders who are against it, are against it because an estimated four-to-eight percent of those on death row are thought to be innocent. This again--to me--is a "front-end" issue and holds little weight for me as to whether or not we should have the death penalty. I would stand by a need for improvement on the front-end all day long. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.