RE: Letters [Oct 16], in which a reader wrote to complain about the use of the terms "girl" and "tomboy" in an interview with the founders of the clothing brand Wildfang ["We're on a Mission," Feature, Oct 2].
JDowdy is angry because somebody called adult females "girls." I've never heard anyone complain about adult males being called "boys," which of course happens just as often. Some people's lives are so devoid of meaning that they have to find some way to be a victim so they can go around tilting at windmills. Well, JDowdy, there are plenty of real examples of sexism, so you can still go around being all bitchy to everyone, but it would be awesome if you could pick a real thing to nag people about.
posted by mikenathan
RE: "Deaf and Dumb" [I, Anonymous, Oct 16], in which the author recounts the tale of a rude bartender who makes an older deaf customer cry.
Okay, y'all need to realize that your bartenders and servers are not your friends. A tip might buy you a smile and a brief chat of small talk, but understand, and please respect, that a bartender is held captive to her station because she is AT WORK. So please just let her do her job tending the bar because you don't have anything to say that a bartender hasn't already heard. If you were interesting you wouldn't be sitting alone at a bar having to corner people to get them to talk to you.
posted by Kattie
Speak for yourself, Kattie!! There wouldn't be a fucking need to "tend" the bar if there weren't any fucking customers sitting at it! If you're a bartender, and this is your shitty attitude, then you deserve every bit of the no tip that's thrown at you! Your bartenders are your friends. Come to my bar, we'll prove it!
posted by Munch
RE: "Coding for Quakes" [News, Oct 16], regarding the need to retrofit many of Portland's older buildings for an expected earthquake.
Check out the Historic Preservation League of Oregon's (now Restore Oregon) special report: "Resilient Masonry Buildings: Saving Lives, Livelihoods, and the Livability of Oregon's Historic Downtowns." While buildings are considered individually for code compliance, the impact of many buildings being damaged at once goes into the economic viability of the downtown and commercial historic districts. The report also recommends that all buildings get a seismic rating that indicates whether buildings allow people to escape safely, can be repaired [while] unoccupied, can be repaired while occupied, or are useable after an earthquake. To be resilient as a city, we need to look at a higher standard than "life/safety" for all buildings.
posted by argocb
This is so sad. So many of Portland's historic buildings are already at risk of being demolished or "renovated" to the point of being unrecognizable, especially now that the real estate market has started to surge again. [Commissioner Steve] Novick is already predicting this in the statement about how building owners would rather just walk away than retrofit. Well, when they walk away, some developer is going to knock the building down and put up another junky, soulless glass box. Is it worth it to lose the architectural identity of a city in exchange for purported "safety?"
posted by palebythesea
@palebythesea: Yes. I don't enjoy uninspired, soulless architecture, either, but if knocking down some of these places would help to save even just a few lives, then I'm all for it. Perhaps they can put some sort of façade on them in order to retain their old-timey charm, but to leave them as is, especially after they have been scientifically shown to be much less safe than they could/should be, would be the height of irresponsibility, short-sightedness, and foolishness.
posted by human in training
CONGRATS, HUMAN! Here's to hoping that this building code issue can be resolved with minimal architectural detriment to the city. One can dream, right? Like with your two tickets to the Laurelhurst Theater for winning the letter of the week, where you can slip into a magic, alternate universe.