The wearing of perfume being important to one's dining experience regardless of how it effects others nearby is what is self-centered, by definition. Believing that others should be subject to the smell of their perfume while dining shows the OP as completely lacking in empathy. That you are arguing the exact opposite…

She was not banned; as you point out yourself, "she could choose not to wear perfume".

How is it a waste of time to call a restaurant to ask about their policies before deciding whether or not to go there, when their policies would be the determining factor in whether or not you went?

A policy (regarding entrance, such as the one in question) is a policy, not part of the "dining experience" . "No shirt, no shoes = no service" is not part of the "dining experience", nor is "no perfume allowed". Additionally, that they chose not to go there at all clearly shows that there literally was no "dining…

HA! She definitely does. She is a singular force in this universe, and all others. Note that I did say that I think Jan still wins the race, though.. :^)

Even worse is the fact that anyone would think that a site called The Daily Currant is even an actual news source of any kind.

Let me introduce you to Jan Terri:

Wow - she's giving Jane Terri a run for her money...

Why would you choose to entrust such a place with your dog's safety?

Posted a review based only upon the ridiculous so-Santa Fe ban

So, because you personally don't like her fashion choices, her opinion is invalid? Isn't the point of a panel to have varying opinions and influences, not just one monolithic viewpoint?

lol.

And here I thought we were finally done with everyone's dumb zombie obsession. Also - this theory is not new or different, and the "usually assumed to affect all areas at the same time" observation is inaccurate. "I'd love to see a fictional account where most of New York City falls in a day, but upstate New York has…

EXACTLY.

I find the entire thing - including peoples' explanations / rationalizations - to be highly entertaining, actually. If your original comment to me was to be jokingly "philosophical", then it didn't come off that way. Funny how written words can be misinterpreted as well, huh?

Ha - no, I don't think you (or anyone seeing white / gold) are an idiot. It's just a visual phenomenon, and the brain does play tricks on us sometimes. :^)

Totally bizarre - and absolutely hilarious.

Oh, I know - and I understand the phenomenon. I just don't understand why / how anyone's brain would default to that assumption, given the full context of the photo which is clearly overexposed and taken under warm lighting conditions. And I also understand that what you are telling me is as hard to explain as what I…

You are free to ignore any comments here.

But you also need to consider the context of the full photo; it is clearly overexposed, washing out the colors and value of the dress and the room as well - which is why the black appears "gold" (I'd say it actually appears more brown than gold); the background is way overexposed, and shows a distinct yellow/orange…