New Rules

Turned out to be a poor idea.

This thread is for the rules anyone has found need to be implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Here's mine:

New Rule:

If you haven't been baking bread regularly prior to the pandemic, you don't get to buy jars of yeast.

One of those 3 envelope packets is more than enough yeast for you to waste discovering that it's more of a pain than it looks. It is very irritating to realize that the full jars of yeast, minus 2 tsp., languishing in refrigerators all over the country are why I can no longer bake my daily bread.

Linda

…………

This rule doesn't sit well with your edicts about the forum vote, particular with regard to human rights. Of course, you're having a joke, I get that. I must say, Linda I'm impressed with your ingenuity though. Baking, weaving, you sound like the ideal wife !

[Laird]

Tim, I don't think that that's an appropriate comment (the one in your final sentence). I mean, in the end it's up to Linda to decide whether she finds it demeaning or flattering, but it could easily be seen as the former.

Well, I understand Linda's point, and sympathise.

I tended to approach the matter mostly with humour, when there was no soap on the supermarket shelves, I realised that all the people who never normally use soap had finally decided to try some.

Sometimes though humour may not be enough, some of the side-effects of uncontrolled buying had devastating impacts on individual people.

As for rules - well I don't have any suggestions. I'm only in favour of us showing consideration for one another.

Tim, I don't think that that's an appropriate comment (the one in your final sentence). I mean, in the end it's up to Linda to decide whether she finds it demeaning or flattering, but it could easily be seen as the former.

Baking, weaving, you sound like the ideal wife !

It's not within your power to be the arbiter of everything that can and can't be said on this forum, Laird. Don't over step the mark; it would undo all your excellent work.

There is nothing offensive about telling a woman she sounds like the ideal wife because she bakes and weaves. If you want to try to suggest I was being patronising, well I wasn't but being patronising is also not an offence as far as I know. It's over the top, Laird, my friend.

[Laird]

I think it's debatable and probably varies from person to person, but OK, tim - it seems as though you at least had good intentions. I guess we'll see what Linda thinks, if she cares to comment.

I wasn't speaking as a moderator, btw, just a fellow poster.

I think it's debatable and probably varies from person to person, but OK, tim - it seems as though you at least had good intentions. I guess we'll see what Linda thinks, if she cares to comment.

I wasn't speaking as a moderator, btw, just a fellow poster.

You're making too much of it Laird. If Linda made a comment about a man (me) being the ideal husband because I paint and lay bricks, would I be offended and PM you for action to be taken ? Would I fiddlesticks.  I'm sorry, but equality doesn't make women  a protected species. And I don't care what Linda thinks, because it wasn't offensive. I hardly think that Linda was trying to suggest that she is forced to bake bread and weave ? She's doing it as hobby.

I'm surprised to be honest because you are usually very sensible in all matters.

[Laird]

I won't drag this out then, tim, and will say no more unless/until Linda weighs in.

I won't drag this out then, tim, and will say no more unless/until Linda weighs in.

Did Linda PM you ? If she did, that would be incredibly mardy. But I would be surprised if she did.

EDIT: By the way Laird >"I wasn't speaking as a moderator, btw, just a fellow poster."

You seem to have reverted back to a moderator?  Unless of course you are a personal friend of Linda's

[Laird]

Did Linda PM you ?

Nope. Nobody in any way influenced me to say what I said. It said it simply because I personally thought it needed to be said.