General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
You guys are just fooling yourselves. If you look the books, as in you're supposed to figure out what the person is like from that.. that's just crap. Most of the times, the books can be there because the parents bought them, relatives and whatnot, and the person didn't want to throw them away. Or some classics, because he heard 'they are classics'.
I'd rather look at the DVD collection, because people buy their own DVDs and throw the crappy ones out. THat's the true soul of the person. And CDs.. what kind of music they are into and stuff like that. Maybe if they order a magazine, what magazine is that etc.. food, what they eat, what they have on their walls, what kind of shoes they have, you quickly notice if the person is any kind of professional, no nice shoes? No nice profession. Also no class. One pair of shoes? Spends his money in the peeping tom show. I look at the entertainment system, what kind of TV, what kind of consoles, what kind of computer.. it's always a good topic, plus I can spot idiots if they have like the PS3, I know they are Sony nuthuggers and prolly not very bright. CHeck out the bathroom, is it clean, how is the toilet, is that one clean, what kind of products they use.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
Nothing in particular, I am more like trying to see the whole picture. Of specific things, though, I always notice and become interested in the computer (duh), and the bookshelf. I know that the presence of books doesn't mean the person reads them, but somehow it's usually possible to tell why the books are there and whether they've been touched or not. A bookshelf which has very neatly arranged apparently perfectly new classics books is either for show or belongs to a real book-maniac. A bookshelf which also has non-classics or books about subjects the person's interested in probably actually gets used.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|