Community > Posts By > katelin0210

 
no photo
Tue 01/29/13 09:58 PM


I would like to think that age doesnt really matter,
but it does in most cases.
I prefer men older than me by maybe 3-5 years.
plus 10-12 is probably my highest limits.
dated boys my age,
and most of them either still looking around for whats better
or just not mature enough mentally.







Mental immaturity has something to do with it but not always.
I know of 'grown' men that are still shopping around for what's better.
It never ends with them 'males'. Lol.

surprised



Haha, yeah that is true.
I mean, I also know some of my other couple friends that has been with each other since college and still going strong. So yeah maturity can be various depends on individuals.
The indicated age range was more of a "general" preference :)

no photo
Tue 01/29/13 09:46 PM


If you can get sooo angry at someone and almost want to choke them to death, yet you still cannot imagine a life without him/her, then its love.

haha.



laugh


Yeah I guess in the end your partner become your family, and thats how it is with families most of the time haha.

no photo
Tue 01/29/13 09:22 PM
I would like to think that age doesnt really matter,
but it does in most cases.
I prefer men older than me by maybe 3-5 years.
plus 10-12 is probably my highest limits.
dated boys my age,
and most of them either still looking around for whats better
or just not mature enough mentally.




no photo
Tue 01/29/13 09:02 PM
I think its perfectly fine as long as it comes off the right way.

Not too desperate and with class and confidence.

no photo
Tue 01/29/13 09:01 PM
If you can get sooo angry at someone and almost want to choke them to death, yet you still cannot imagine a life without him/her, then its love.

haha.

no photo
Tue 01/29/13 08:58 PM

Well, when you look at someone and just wanna jump their bones, it's just lust. Love would require far more effort :)


I have to sorta agree to that. Initial attraction is more of a natural instinct.
You have to get to know the person to actually love them.
so-called "real love" anyways.

no photo
Tue 01/29/13 08:56 PM
Curvy but not sloppy, slender but not bony, all depends on mother-given genes and how one takes care of oneself.

In other words, healthy and fit!

no photo
Tue 01/29/13 08:56 PM
Curvy but not sloppy, slender but not bony, all depends on mother-given genes and how one takes care of oneself.

In other words, healthy and fit!

no photo
Tue 01/29/13 08:42 AM
worried...still haven't found a place to stay in New York and I am going there in a few days!

no photo
Sun 01/27/13 10:53 PM

Yeah the shopkeep is wrongful for that and it wad cheap so i would be outraged and pay her in pennies


ahahahahaha!!!!!

no photo
Sun 01/27/13 09:07 PM
Edited by katelin0210 on Sun 01/27/13 09:08 PM



$14.00 is pittance to argue about principle, but i would be peeved too if somebody came into my shop, broke a $14.00 item, and then proceeded to argue about paying for it because it was 'cheaply made'...i'm guessing there's a principle somewhere in there too ;-)




14 dollar is definitely very small amount of money to worry about.
Just happened to overhear this story and wonder about what y'all think. :)


Well..maybe your friend got the short end of the stick...maybe not.

The principle remains the same for the retailer...as well as the customer. There is no realistic resolve for a $14.00 piece of junk, apart from a moralsitic viewpoint, and this can be argued till we're blue in the face. But for $14.00??...psssht...i'd rather just suck it up then shake it off.




Haha, agree. She did suck it up. I guess if the shop girl's attitude werent that rude, she wouldnt even have brought it up to me.

I am the one who's curious about the law and perspectives behind all these, regardless of the price.
Thanks for all your input tho, real interesting to hear from all of you!

no photo
Sun 01/27/13 08:42 PM

$14.00 is pittance to argue about principle, but i would be peeved too if somebody came into my shop, broke a $14.00 item, and then proceeded to argue about paying for it because it was 'cheaply made'...i'm guessing there's a principle somewhere in there too ;-)




14 dollar is definitely very small amount of money to worry about.
Just happened to overhear this story and wonder about what y'all think. :)

no photo
Sun 01/27/13 08:40 PM

About the ring its aoubvious. Did not have to pay. Was already repaired with glue like you said or it was fabricated like that "unsure of glue situation" ya know. But your friend seems to be passive customers have to put their foot down and not get shafted. Pick your battles,stand your ground when you're right.just don't go taking advantage of merchants.


My friend was confused because she is an international student here, so she did not really know what rules normally applied here in the States.

I agree that if you damage something, you ought to take responsibilities. Though law and common sense often only describe a general principle. There are different situations that might need further examinations..

no photo
Sun 01/27/13 07:32 PM
Over half year.

no photo
Sun 01/27/13 07:20 PM

I'm curious to know how much the ring cost


Its 14 USD, so it's not exactly about the price that my friend cared about.

no photo
Sun 01/27/13 06:49 PM

it isn't a "crime". They can't hold you there until you pay for it and the cops won't arrest you for an accident, but the store can sue you. After that it's up to the judge. But regardless if there is a law, I would feel horrible if I broke something and didn't pay for it. It's damaged merchandise. I would be responsible.

I think morally it's the right thing to do, even if the store doesn't ask you to pay for it.


Of course, I would be too, and I would definitely pay too if I could afford it.

I guess it's that part where the shop girl's comment on how judging from my friends clothes, she SHOULD pay it that got us to wonder about this question.

:)

no photo
Sun 01/27/13 06:39 PM
Edited by katelin0210 on Sun 01/27/13 06:44 PM

why should there be a law or signs. If someone damages something that doesn't belong to them, they should pay for it. why should the store have to fix the damage caused by someone else? Maybe gluing it back won't work. Sometimes re-gluing won't hold again.


I understand that it would be commonly assumed,
however after doing some research online I found pretty various opinion about this

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/you-break-it-you-buy-it-law.aspx

Also, when you broke someone's car, of course you should pay for the damage.
But you're paying for the part where you damaged, not buy a new car for them.

The handmade ring was made of buttons glued together,
so it could be easily glued back.


no photo
Sun 01/27/13 06:34 PM
Edited by katelin0210 on Sun 01/27/13 06:38 PM
One of my friend went to a local store today,
she picked up a handmade ring to take a look.
when she put it back, the ring accidentally dropped on the ground and broke.
The part that broke was originally glued together.
The shop girl immediately insisted that my friend should pay for it.
My friend asked them was it not possible to glue it back together.
There were no signs saying "Don't touch without assistance" or "Break it, buy it" in the shop.
The shop girl still insisted that she pay the full price.
My friend said she didn't really like the ring plus it was not her size,
and offered to pay for the repairing fee.
The shop girl made a comment about how judging from my friend's clothing and handbags,
she SHOULD be able to afford it.
Which confused her, does that mean if she looks poor then she did not have to pay?

In the end she did pay, just confused by the whole situation.

What do you think?
Is there really a law that if you break something in a store, you HAVE to buy it?





no photo
Sat 01/26/13 09:22 PM
I love Sheldon!!!!

no photo
Sat 01/26/13 09:01 PM
It's a tough one. I do think that for me its not so much as the number of relationships but the reasons why they ended. As in numbers of relationships might differ depends on the age of the person.

Previous 1 3 4 5 6