Understood. But I do appreciate the maturity of your taking responsibility instead of letting people continue to attack me over a word that I didn't say. It certainly would have been easier to let me take the flak for your word than to own up to it, and I think that deserves public recognition.
Do you really not know the difference between "every senior" and "every senior I know." Really? Now who's putting words in people's mouths?
I'd be willing to bet that your original statement didn't differentiate because it didn't occur to you to differentiate. But don't let that inconvenient fact get in your way.
Yup. And nobody really contested that, although they expressed shock that it would be the case and asked what your source was. They responded "well, that's not true among the people I know" which makes sense if you look at who they probably know (yes, I'm making certain assumptions about the population of Port Lucie, FL and Halifax, NS).
Yup. I think that people have agreed with that, and the conversation was never really about all people 65 and over anyway, was it? It was about the grannies who attend your craft fair.
Yes, dear, you are so correct. You are always right and never, ever, wrong. We all know that.
But can we go back and talk about the people likely to attend your craft fair and your blanket statement that they wouldn't be online? Are you seriously arguing that they're more like your parents than they are like Sheena and Lucille? If that's the case, couldn't you have just said so and avoided all this hubbub instead of making blanket statements about grannies everywhere?
Elizabeth
Now I would greatly appreciate if you would stop quoting The NY Times article that stated 22%. As I said before, that article was dated 2004 and was old news. I'm convinced that the new percentage would be higher, especially given my knowledge of the people I'm surrounded by and I call friends or acquaintences.
Of my old friends, both here in Florida and back in New York and all over the world, nearly all of them have computers and at least a working knowledge of how to use them. If for no other reason, it's to show their grandkids that they aren't completely out of it and still can learn.
L
No. I mean reading them to see what people who normally are kind to me might find offensive. Unless, of course, you want to claim that most people on this group are not kind to you, in which case I wonder why you are here.
But you'll spend six hours defending yourself from someone with no ulterior motive who simply misunderstood you rather than take the time to compose your post more carefully in the first place. Ok, whatever.
Elizabeth
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ....
Can't everyone involved just call a truce? How important is this anyway? I mean, a thousand people just died, now another thousand and each second a thousand die, many of starvation and other horrible deaths, like thirst.
Regardless what was said, can't it just let go? We all know how these festivals just grow and grow till the whole plot is lost. I like that expression. I've lost the plot! It's from my Australian Buddhist nun Teacher. She'll be talking on and on about something and go in another direction and she always says, "I've lost the plot." It always makes us all laugh.
C'mon, don't ruin my reputation of being an instigator of these things by forcing me to call truce for you all. My whole persona, people, it will all go up in smoke!
lol victoria
Sorry, I didn't mean to call anyone "she." I should have said "Regardles what was said and by whom..."
"lucretia borgia" wrote
People learn to live with the conditions around them. Our weather here might strike Karen's neighbours in California as horrible--but few of them have much experience with it. People who have coped with it for 60+ years dress warmly, wear shoes with good grips (loooove those traction thingies you can bungee on) and go about their business. (and say, yup, it's a dry cold). We know what to expect, how to cope, and when to stay in.
They would likely wonder about people living in California in the summer, with smog and pollution alerts, and how old people could possible go outside. How do they breathe?? And the answer is, people know what to expect, how to cope, and when to stay in.
And it would take a lot more than a mere snowstorm to slow Sheena down.
Dawne
"Cheryl Isaak" wrote >
Sadly, as with so many trends heavily marketed to kids, Webkinz has its own magazine.
Dawne
"Karen C in California" wrote >
Before I started working at the book store last August, I wouldn't necessarily been very savvy about them, not because they weren't around in lots of stores, but because to someone not especially interested, they look like another cute stuffed toy. The name did register with me, because it was all over the displays. But the card store chain that carries them carries other stuffed animals, some of which also have distinctive brand names. So you might just walk by them, or even pick one up, and say "cute", but not recognize their particular gimmick. I wasn't buying stuffed toys for anyone, so I wouldn't have paid attention. By last Christmas, there were trading cards, jewellery, clothes for the toys, totes for them, etc etc.
Dawne
The issue is that I have generalized from my observations that over 65 is the age range "least likely to own a computer" and the statistics have borne me out.
Sheena and Lucille have generalized from their observations that there is almost-universal computer usage among their over 65 friends, and the statistics have proven that, in fact, on the whole, coast-to-coast, only
22-35% of seniors (pick one of the various numbers provided by others) are online and that, in fact, as I stated, as a whole, that age group is "least likely to own a computer". I don't dispute their observations in their own social circles, but the statistics don't bear out *their* generalizations that my family/friends are the only Luddites out there.In fact, (pick one of the statistics cited earlier by other people)
65-78% of seniors do NOT have computers, which even at the low end is a notable majority, and at the high end squares with my own observations that only 1-in-5 do.What is so difficult in admitting that when I stated that seniors, on the whole, are "least likely to own a computer" and the statistics show that only about a fifth to a third do, in fact, use computers, I made a correct statement that computer ownership is lower among seniors than among other age ranges?
All the other arguments about "boring", "stupid", small segments of the population, are nothing but red herrings to distract from the fact that I was correct: fewer than half of seniors own computers and more than half of non-seniors do.
I haven't brought a single statistic of my own to this conversation, other than my vague recollection that the newspaper said "least likely to own". I've adopted everyone else's statistics, and they have then tried to disown them after I've stated that I find these acceptable.
Now you're reading my mind?
No, my original statement didn't differentiate because the statistic I recalled seeing didn't differentiate between rich/poor/black/white/educated/illiterate. The statistic I recalled simply said that the age group as a whole was less likely to own computers than any other age group, and all the statistics cited in this discussion have borne that out. I didn't try to extrapolate anything out of that statistic other than what I recalled it saying, "age group as a whole".
Correct. The initial conversation was about that particular group, which from personal observation on my part skews toward the older end of the over-65 age range, and are frugal enough with their money that they're not going to buy a computer just to keep up with the Joneses. I know these people, have talked to these people one-on-one, I know how they think, and for anyone to tell me that because their friends in Florida or Halifax are online, these people are too, is clearly an assumption based on knowing nothing at all about the people I'm talking about.
In countering that assumption based on Sheena and Lucille's friends, I did say that I recalled a statistic (didn't recall the exact number) that the over-65 crowd is "least likely to own a computer". Every statistic cited has borne me out, and none of those statistics were provided by me.
The only blanket statement I made about grannies everywhere was that they are the age group "least likely to own a computer". All the prior statements were about this particular group of grannies who will be attending this particular event. I am saying that ethnically, age-wise, financially, and in their thought-processes about purchasing a computer, they are very much like my parents, who are older than Sheena and Lucille.
I have no doubt that I could talk them into dropping $5 on a dress for Barbie, a toy they recognize and which has endured (even if it has lost some following recently).
I have serious doubt that I could convince them to buy anything, even for $2, for "what's a webkin?", a fad toy that may be obsolete two days after Christmas.
As stated, Mavia's attempt at explanation -- had I not already followed Cheryl's link -- would have simply reinforced my notion that this is a critter that exists only in cyberspace and therefore it's a complete waste of money to buy it clothes that exist in the 3-D world. And if I don't totally understand the thing myself, I can't explain it to someone who's not as computer-savvy as Sheena/Mavia/Lucille and who is also naturally skeptical of anyone trying to get them to part with their money. Just the word "web", in that crowd, will raise the spectre of scams, because they're the type who fear what goes on online, and would make it an even harder sell than if the same toy was named Beanie Babies or Cabbage Patch Kids.
Younger/hipper grannies like Sheena/Mavia/Lucille might be an easier sell, but that's not descriptive of the clientele at this event. There are more 80-somethings than 60-somethings in attendance, and I would not be exaggerating to call a lot of them "old stick in the muds". I have (see prior posts) called them "tightwads".
Absolutely. But someone who is not as young and healthy a senior as Sheena -- someone has difficulty enough walking on flat/dry surface without trying to navigate snow and ice -- will be homebound by a snowstorm.
My great-aunt, who was certainly as spunky as our Sheena in spirit, broke a hip and on doctors' orders no longer ventured out when there was snow on the ground. After a big enough blizzard, she'd stay home for days to avoid the chance of further injury.
Had she lived in California, she never would have had to skip her church meetings because of snow, because we never have any.
That was all the point I was trying to make: that in Sheena's part of the world, there are people who don't get out much in winter because of weather, where we don't have the same hazards here, and therefore, there's not the same need to seek out online companionship because we're never snowed in and isolated.
And vice versa. Canadians look at us like we're nuts when we go out in
100 degrees to play softball, and say (with a straight face) "cooling trend to 108".I have, absolutely deadpan, asked for a sweater in 85 degrees, because the day before, when I left here, it was almost 30 degrees hotter and I really was cold among all these people who swore they were sweating to death.
The Uncyclopedia is a handy unreference for many things. For example:
Crochet -
Knitting -
Barbie -
Beanie Babies
There is no entry for Webkinz but you can help to rectify this omission
Precisely. It is possible that both Mom's social circle and mine have walked past them in a store and because none of the kids we knew had asked for them, did just walk right past.
I do, however, prowl every inch of my favorite card stores, know their stock almost as well as the employees, and can say with near 100% certainty that the places where I buy most of my greeting cards do not stock Webkinz.
I've never been much of a mall rat, even as a teenager, so I know that I have not been in every store in town. Mom and her friends spend a lot more time in malls than I do, though, and buy more toys for more kids, so if Webkinz are so ubiquitous, it is far more surprising that they're all completely unaware of them than that I am clueless.
Oh, good, even an online informational site that doesn't know about them! I'm starting to feel less out of the loop.
I thought there was nothing to misunderstand about "statistically, people over age 65 are least likely to own computers." If anyone misunderstood that simple declarative sentence, it has more to do with their reading skills than my writing skills.
As far as spending 6 hours on it, I had no paying work today, and spent most of the day hanging around waiting for DBF to be finished with his appointment of indeterminate length. Dinner was to be leftovers from yesterday, so I had nothing better to do while I was waiting for him than to try to clear up the misunderstandings and misquotations that resulted in the attacks.
I am scheduled to have work coming in tomorrow, and therefore, will not have another 6 hours to spend explaining that I said what I said, and I did not say what other people said.
I think it all depends on what you want when you switch on your telly. Some people want to be informed, others want their opinions validated, others want entertainment and others just want background noise.
Of course, if you want to watch informative, non-fictional stuff, then some of the farcical shows (I *think* 'Desperate Housewives' would come under that? I haven't watched it often enough to be sure) surely wouldn't do. But if you want a bit of fluff and farce, then it's perfect for that and very funny if you know someone who resembles a character. It all depends on what's your cup of tea.
When DD was younger, I *hated* her watching 'The Simpsons' because every time I turned around, I'd hear some kid in a supermarket aping Bart and smart-mouthing his mother. Now she's older, we both laugh our heads off at the humour because it doesn't threaten anything I'm trying to achieve. The problem was all mine, I s'pose.
Then there's 'South Park'. Neither I nor DD can find the slightest amusing thing about it and we often wonder why, since she's such a TV connoisseuse and laughs at just about everything. She reckons its because the humour is immature, but *I* reckon it's because it's often hurtful in intent to some character or another. DD hates seeing anyone mocked or bullied, so I reckon it strikes close to home with her. My DBIL and all his kids just love the show, however, and he's not a bad or evil person. (Well, not usually, except when he's playing practical jokes on me). DBIL uses 'South Park' to show his kids how *not* to speak or treat people. Works for him. Wouldn't work for me. Oh well!
In recent years, Oz TV has gone to the pack! There's barely anything worth waiting for and we only get a handful of absorbing documentaries. ALL drama is formulaic and follows an American trend (NB. we're not American) and US sitcoms are given prime-time while the *really* (to us) funny Oz stuff is on late at night. So I don't watch it any more. This is where my dear little PC steps in!
Someone was said something in another thread about it being less than perfect, using a computer for human contact? Well, I'd rather do that than sit glued to the idiot-box all night! I do my human-contacting in the daytime and if I'm forced to watch *one* more iteration of CSI or Big Brother or 'reality TV' I'll SCREEM!
I don't care if it was on purpose or not.
If it wasn't on purpose, clearly the problem is not what I said, since I never said that, but that someone else was reading too fast and didn't double-check who said what before accusing me of saying all old people are boring. If I thought all old people were boring, I wouldn't have spent tens of thousands of hours talking to old people over the span of my life.
And if it was on purpose, then it's still not what I said, but the responsibility of the person who purposely misquoted me.
In either case, it's not my responsibility to apologize for someone else's misstatement of what I never said.
"Oh, but you meant to say..." doesn't cut it unless you're Kreskin and a certified mind reader. What I meant to say was right there in black and white. This whole group knows that I don't mince words. If I meant to say "they're boring and stupid" I would have used those words and not played "intuit what I mean".
I have a whole stack of medical records full of false statements preventing me from getting my Disability benefits because the doctors decided to write down what they think I "meant to say" instead of what I actually did say. Like Horton the Elephant "I meant what I said, and I said what I meant"; if someone chooses to interpret it otherwise, then the problem isn't on my end. I grew up with people who didn't speak English well, and learned that the best way to communicate is to simply say what you mean instead of playing guessing games that require them to grasp nuance and inference.
Let's put the responsibility for this where it belongs, on the people who make the false statements, whether intentional or unintentional, which I am then attacked for, when a few minutes backtracking would reveal that I, in fact, never said it.
I don't give a flying rat's ass whether they apologize to me or not. Just don't do it again in the future, or you'll be called on it.
InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.