I feel like this has come up in previous conversations, but that certainly looks to me like a stack of horse passports in the upper right corner of the picture of the safe.
I may be misremembering, but wasn’t there some post way back on one of the earlier threads that KK used to be a serial beauty pageant contestant? That whole industry revolves around people who are very concerned with body image and appearance - and in many cases, they are OBSESSIVELY focused on it.
I have never watched that show Toddlers and Tiaras, or anything like it, because… eww.
But some of the posts here might provide an interesting insight into the disproportionate importance of appearance throughout life to people with that mentality.
Terrible person? Attacks other people? Wrecks lives left and right? Who cares? She looks good!
The thing about looks is that they’re so subjective. Who/what I think is attractive may vary from what you(g) consider to be attractive.
So you can “flaunt” whatever all day long, but some people really don’t give a fig or find you attractive at all. It’s best to do things for yourself, not others.
Not only fireproof, many of these safes are also bolted to the floor. They are the safest place to store something difficult to replace - like FEI passports and other documents that must be original, like original registration papers.
Here @hut-ho78, I fixed Angela’s post for you. Do you like it better now? My clarification is in bold, I crossed out the part that you were confused by.
I never thought to bolt ours down. It would take more than a barefoot ninja and her laundry boy to take off with it. It is crazy heavy.
But now that you mentioned the whole bolt to the floor thing I am going to look into that.
I couldn’t get through all of the pedantic and inflammatory posts since my last visit, so I’m going to pause a moment and take stock.
To boost the image of a drug addict with a record of violent behavior, who recounts with mirth how they’ve tormented strangers, mourning parents, and even their own mentors, who has never mustered enough energy or dedication to be particularly high-achieving in a hobby where they have significant time and resource advantages (let alone to build a respectable career), who has no ethical qualms about momentous lies or false reports of child abuse, and who sends their mommy and daddy out on the internet to fight their battles, the Kanawrecks and affiliated parties have denigrated and taunted (among others):
middle-aged women who participate in online forums (with the exception of one particular middle-aged woman whose prolific social media posts include manifestos, thinly veiled threats of violent and/or legal actions, and bullying young strangers)
parents whose children haven’t instigated violent conflicts
legal professionals who play crucial roles in the justice system
anyone who works to support themself in the low-paying jobs that make up a majority of the labor force
survivors of rape
survivors of cancer
If I log in tomorrow and find videos of this family drop-kicking puppies I wouldn’t bat an eye, at this point.
Now, it’s one thing for parents, with all their human flaws, to lash out blindly when they feel their offspring are threatened. But one hilarious facet of these discussions is the insistence of some of the most patently antisocial posters that they have no connection to that family or the aforementioned addict. Their presence, persistence, and participation in punching down is not particularly effective evidence that reasonable people can disagree about the key points of this legal case; instead it only makes it clear that the deeply flawed plaintiff in this case is not quite as unique as some of us might hope.
What does this have to do with the civil case? If, for funsies, we assume that this thread is a microcosm of the broader world (it is not, as any farm boy can tell you, but let’s entertain the assumption), we can use the representation of viewpoints here to make some inferences about what a jury might look like. The number of posters who display the sort of character and intellect here that make them sympathetic to LaLa can be counted on one hand. With the participant count at 125 unique log-ins, that’s 4%. If there are 6 jurors empaneled for a New Jersey civil trial, then we could estimate the likelihood of even one LaLa-loving juror as 1-(1-0.04)^6, or about 22%. If you exclude parents from the count, that drops below a 14% chance of one juror being nutty enough to eat out of LaLa’s hand. And if you consider that this thread is a non-representative sample in which LaLa sympathies are likely to be overrepresented and antipathy to ‘horse girl’ stereotypes is likely to be underrepresented, I’m guessing the real likelihood of a single juror finding her anything but vile, unreliable, and a significant contributor to her own misfortune is a single digit percentage.
Which is a tiny bit of comfort when we are forced to confront the fact that among us are people who feel no remorse about using the misfortunes that have befallen others through no fault of their own as ammunition in petty attacks.