Safe vs Dangerous in LA
-
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 14:30 last edited by
-
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 14:39 last edited by
idiots
-
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 14:42 last edited by
Money talks. It has ever been thus.
Is it right? Not even close. Am I surprised? Same. I wish her luck in getting this out.
-
Money talks. It has ever been thus.
Is it right? Not even close. Am I surprised? Same. I wish her luck in getting this out.
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 14:49 last edited by George K 12 May 2020, 14:50 -
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 14:52 last edited by
As I said, I wish her luck. This might be the one year I wish I still lived in California. Then I might be able to go out to eat again.
Gonna be a long winter.
-
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 15:17 last edited by
Under the county’s guidelines, video and music production is deemed essential. Many production crews also test employees frequently, while under the recent Los Angeles County health order, restaurants like Marsden’s were forced to shut down their outdoor dining.
Allrighty, then.
-
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 16:39 last edited by
I cannot for the life of me see why they have to shut down outdoor dining.
-
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 16:41 last edited by
@Mik said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
I cannot for the life of me see why they have to shut down outdoor dining.
You can't be serious
Virtue!
-
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 16:43 last edited by
But the movies, man. The movies!
-
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 18:52 last edited by Aqua Letifer 12 May 2020, 18:53
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
Yeah. I second Mik's first comment.
The specifics of her situation are ideal for viral sharing, though. I hope she has a GoFundMe.
-
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
Yeah. I second Mik's first comment.
The specifics of her situation are ideal for viral sharing, though. I hope she has a GoFundMe.
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 19:15 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
Yeah. I second Mik's first comment.
The specifics of her situation are ideal for viral sharing, though. I hope she has a GoFundMe.
That was my initial take but there are valid reasons for viewing these differently, one is the likelihood of the employees being tested frequently and other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work. Would be interested in counterpoints to those arguments.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
Yeah. I second Mik's first comment.
The specifics of her situation are ideal for viral sharing, though. I hope she has a GoFundMe.
That was my initial take but there are valid reasons for viewing these differently, one is the likelihood of the employees being tested frequently and other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work. Would be interested in counterpoints to those arguments.
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 19:34 last edited by@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
-
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 19:57 last edited by
Glad to know she and her employees run the place for fun and not work.
-
Glad to know she and her employees run the place for fun and not work.
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 20:53 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
Glad to know she and her employees run the place for fun and not work.
I knew it might be taken that way. I was talking about the customers.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
Yeah. I second Mik's first comment.
The specifics of her situation are ideal for viral sharing, though. I hope she has a GoFundMe.
That was my initial take but there are valid reasons for viewing these differently, one is the likelihood of the employees being tested frequently and other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work. Would be interested in counterpoints to those arguments.
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 20:53 last edited by Aqua Letifer 12 May 2020, 20:54@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
-
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 20:54 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
I was talking about the clientele not the workers put out to the street.
-
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 20:55 last edited by@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
It would lead to an assload more people unemployed than the woman's business. Just sayin'.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
I was talking about the clientele not the workers put out to the street.
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 21:46 last edited by@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
I was talking about the clientele not the workers put out to the street.
I don't see how that's in any way material. Her employees' jobs aren't less important because their clientele are there "for fun," any more than the movie production company and its employees aren't important because "all they do is make movies." You have a small-ass patio that's essential to keep open so that the woman's business doesn't go under. You have a shitload of tents set up for a movie production company that arguably don't need to be, because you can find other logistical means to feed your staff.
(Honestly, what the production company should do is hire the woman for catering. Everybody's happy.)
Please love yourself.
-
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
It would lead to an assload more people unemployed than the woman's business. Just sayin'.
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 23:15 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
It would lead to an assload more people unemployed than the woman's business. Just sayin'.
Cumulatively in LA? I doubt it.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
It would lead to an assload more people unemployed than the woman's business. Just sayin'.
Cumulatively in LA? I doubt it.
wrote on 5 Dec 2020, 23:30 last edited by@Mik said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
It would lead to an assload more people unemployed than the woman's business. Just sayin'.
Cumulatively in LA? I doubt it.
No, just her business. As for total restaurants vs. total movie crew, probably you're right? I have no idea.
