Then you're a dick. A self-important wanker of the highest order.

You didn't pay for a private screening, you paid for 1 two-hundredth of the cost.

But apparently there are a few of you, and these people cater to your kind.

Different strokes for different folks...

For example - (Thinks)"Ah good, my spouse is picking me up at the north side of the car park at 4.30pm". [Puts phone away.]

If self-righteous and overbearing, like you, is the average "drafthouse" customer, then I am glad I'll never be near one.

And this business has the gall to say that checking a phone will be unacceptably distracting to others!!!!

It certainly seems that they are a reaction to people's perceptions that there are unacceptable oiks in the world.

They come across as the country club of cinemas. Deeply intolerant and with a sure sense of their own superiority.

I'm with the GP. No problem if someone has their phone open, briefly. Perhaps they are being texted with information about who is picking them up?

If the films were any good anymore, they wouldn't be so easy to distract us from.

a TV studio to produce original programming.

Original, in the sense of a remake of a TV series that was based on a novel in the first place.

I did not say that. I pointed out your repeated appeals to worse problems. You claim that hazards faced in one job are false because other jobs are hazardous.

You should note that the job of killer whale trainer is sold as "family friendly fun". Few people are mislead into thinking that for example, coal mining is not dangerous and unpleasant.

Although this is an article on cracked, it seems pretty convincing and claims to be written by an insider. Feel free to criticise the source, of course.

You mention the trading of safety for cost reduction in towers, interesting. Please explain how this justifies performing animals.

You probably see the one that is your own country first. By discouraging the whale and dolphin equivalent of the dancing bear that happens in your own backyard. Appeals to the existence of worse problems elsewhere do not change the existence of problem. You don't even dispute the failings of Seaworld and the like, you want us to ignore them.

Please move on from appeals to worse problems. No one is convinced.

Children and families are quite likely to get similar bees in their bonnet if they see documentaries about animals in captivity. .

One way is to de-normalise performing animals, so that children might stop seeing large sea animals as our playthings.

I put it to you that Seaworld's mentioning of conservation is greenwash. Nothing else.

You attempt to refute this by pointing out that other dangerous jobs exist.

You attempt to refute this by saying that life in the wild is not perfectly safe. Well done. Now explain why being caged in a tiny fraction of typical range space is non-traumatic.

Animals are killed in one part of the world, therefore mistreating for entertainment in another part of the world is fine.

Another attempt at refutation by mentioning other bad things.

What we have from you is four red herrings.

Is this the best you can do?

Your use of expletives and resorting to ad hominem demonstrates your problem. You associate a dislike of performing caged animals with politics that you hate. Try and address the issues next time.

Most sensible people realise that Seaworld is not the equivalent of a zoo, it is the equivalent of a circus. We moved on from dancing bears quite a while ago.

Really, what proportion of people will be heartbroken at missing out on a tiny aspect of avant garde 20th century orchestral music?

People who are in gossip magazines are pretty much by definition in bad taste.

The celebrity heiress is precisely what a £50,000 watch that isn't made of platinum & diamonds aims away from.

And that is why the most expensive timepieces aren't diamond covered. It doesn't need to be sparkly, but you know the quality.

Your case is that the market for expensive watches will disappear because of a new technology. Your quoted evidence for this is that wealthy people bought the latest smartphones. This is weak for the following reason - smartphones did not replace anything that previously existed. (I suppose you might claim they replaced desk diaries, but desk diaries never had any jewellery value) They were a new category. one which is very useful indeed, so the richest among us bought the top of the range model. No surprise at all.

You still have no evidence that people who bought expensive watches for jewellery reasons will stop doing so. After all they could afford a superlative timepiece (of great value, but not diamond-encrusted) and the latest iwatch galaxy couldn't they?

Secondly, smartwatches are not looking anywhere near as popular as smartphones - they are just not as useful. There will need to be some kind of revolution in what can be done usefully with a screen of that size. So far no-one has made a popular smartwatch, but even when your bag or pocket has lots of devices that tell the time many (most?) people still wear a watch. I do so because it's handy just to turn your arm to see the time. The thing I wear on my arm to see the time will cost one ten thousandth of the billionaire's choice but they will still choose to wear one.

Then why do the exceptionally wealthy choose mechanical and hand made watches instead of quartz ones that are more accurate?

Aren't they gadgets?

Watches used to be sold as accurate. But the marketing changed in the 70s from accuracy to tradition. Wearing a smartwatch leaves no room on your wrist for your grandfather's Breguet. (Or the watch you will pretend was your grandfather's)

A smartwatch that costs a fortune will be pretty much by definition, nouveau.

Yes they won't use those. And that is precisely what a jewellery-priced smartwatch would be.

The snob value issue, is not so much about having just what their friends have, as having what no-one in the lower orders could possibly have.

Mechanical watches are fundamentally different from quartz, but your imagined SmartPatek would simply be some the same electronics in a Platinum case.

You seem to be claiming that for some reason the category of thing on your wrist will change from this is where I show my good taste and breeding, to this is where I have the very latest gadget. Why would it do that?

Old and new money will have differing opinions of what good taste is, of course. Among some types it's an insult to say that someone "bought all his own furniture"

Absolutely no-one who wants to be well thought of wears a quartz watch - "Oh my goodness me, Blancpain don't make quartz - who could be seen with one of those.. How terribly arriviste!"

• We get:
• 65 billion / 100 call it $600 x 10 ^6.
• 600 x 10^6 / $12,000 is .002%

I am sure he could choose a 19th century antique that was made for some historical figure, instead he spends one 50 thousandth part of what he could spend in a year.

Even if you get that casio for £10 (it seems to be listed at about £20) then to be doing a Buffet, you need to have £mid six figures per annum to be at the same proportion.

He doesn't really feel the need to have sparkly things to show that he has more money than you, does he?

I think it's unlikely that 4-or-5 figure value watch buyers would choose the latest shockproof casio over something handmade and mechanical. Exclusivity is key for them. There are comments on this thread to the effect that their goal is "no hoi polloi have what I have."

My evidence that they will choose "jewellery" and "tradition" and "timeless quality" is that this is what they do already.

Given that wearing a smartwatch means you can't wear a clockwork antique what will they choose to do? Be seen with a £8,000 inaccurate-but-durable "timepiece" or be seen with a £600 superduper smartwatch - which one has more snob value?