Glad someone mentioned using the word ‘decimated’. For years I’ve noticed a lot of people use the word as interchangeable with ‘annihilated’. Annihilated means total destruction. Decimate comes from the ancient Roman practice of killing every tenth man. A 10% reduction is a tithe, not complete destruction.
A neighbor taps his trees as well as a few of ours. He gives us a small glass bottle of syrup. He only does it every few years, so we cherish the syrup.
He also has bees. They feed on the clover in our horse pasture, so he gifts us some honey.
There’s the historical meaning: to kill or destroy one tenth of. And there’s the modern meaning: to kill, destroy, or reduce greatly (by a large percentage) but not completely. Has the word undergone a second shift in meaning, to complete annihilation? Too much confusion; that’s why I answered that I just wouldn’t use the word.
Mary and Walter are both right (except that they might by selling recoup some of what was spent; but it’s highly unlikely to be “most”, unless the items have become valuable antiques in the meantime). And maybe Mary needs something else to do.
I agree this is the sense I get from the colloquial use of “decimate” - to severely weaken, not destroy. “This week Google was decimated by a huge round of layoffs.”
Lots of people have mild-to-moderate addictions (alcohol, gambling, or even watching 10 hours of TV a day), the difference is that the evidence of Mary’s addiction is visible. I say unless there’s evidence it’s actually harmful to her, and she finds it somehow soothing, Mary can do what she wants. Stop being the boss of her, Walter!
I’m aware of the original meaning of decimation and its origins. But I accept the modern revised meaning. I rationalize this by thinking decimation used to mean a reduction by a tenth and it now means a reduction to a (approximate) tenth.
Walter and Mary needs some nuance. Is Mary Walter’s first wife, there from the beginning, through thick and thicker? If so, then she deserves to spend as she wants. Is she 35 years younger than Walter? Then he needs to put her on a budget or kick her to the curb.
I feel it shouldn’t be looked at as an issue of money or closet space, which the couple apparently have an abundance of. The question should be whether or not the shopping has reached a level where it’s causing problems for how Mary lives her life.
On my animated series poll, I voted for Futurama - on the theory that they’ve repeatedly tried cancelling it but it keeps coming back.
This. I feel the answers are at cross purposes. The money and closet space aren’t an issue. But is she obsessing in an unhealthy way? Or does she get harmless pleasure from her collecting? We can’t tell from the poll.
I will never forget this as it was demonstrated in the novel World War Z. Shudder. Insubordinate soldiers were ordered to divide into groups of ten, choose one among them to kill, and then bludgeon that person to death with a rock.
Mary is a hoarder. She probably can’t stop.
The Simpsons seems unkillable at this point, but I voted South Park for their ability to crank out full current event-themed episodes inside of a week. That seems like a pretty huge advantage over anything that uses even a little bit of traditional animation.
That was my thought. If Mary is a hoarder, then Walt is right to ask her to scale back. If she isn’t, then she shouldn’t mind getting rid of a large portion of her collection, but then continuing to shop excessively. The key issue isn’t the shopping, it’s the hoarding. The money she spends is the equivalent of $1,000 per year for you or I. Not something that’s going to bust the budget.
Hip flask? 
That’s not clear to me. I feel like both shopping and collecting are things that can be done in a healthy or unhealthy way.
I agree that shopping can be a problem, but as described, the spending is the equivalent of a few thousand dollars a year in a family income of, say $200,000 per year (or a few hundred dollars for an income of $50,000). Certainly not enough to cause any hardship or be considered out of control.
I don’t consider the shopping any more outrageous than something like Jay Leno’s car collection. But a man’s car collection is not usually mocked as frivolous or money-wasting.
The money is obviously not a problem. But is the time? Does she get joy from shopping, or is she trying to fill some other hole?
I don’t see anything obviously wrong with her keeping the shoes, assuming she has room for them. Again, does she take joy from having the collection? Or do they just become clutter to her?