Angie, thank you for helping to clear things up! Could you please also comment on essentials vs completers?
LaPed, the way you describe your non-essentials as things you wear often but could replace sounds just like the way I think of it. Not the plaid/stripes examples, but cranberry/pink pants, and lots of other things. Like you and Sarah, I didn’t intend to get caught up in this, but here I am. My son has been laughing at how much effort I’m putting into the training sessions for my entry-level job, even though the instructor says I’m doing great. I just can’t approach anything school-like any other way. Sounds like you’re the same, at least with this, as am I.
Star, I get caught up in all the defining and categorizing without really knowing why I’m doing it. Can you explain what you think it will help with?
Nemosmom, that is awesome and I entirely missed it, lol!
Jenn, your Mr. Bean example is great! Neither you nor LaPed are thread-jacking—your comments are right on the money. The whole “not the platonic ideal wardrobe” subtopic is great. For now, I think I’m over that.
RL, yes, you said the Corps was essentials, and soloists were completers. In Angie’s metaphor, supporting roles are essentials and extras are completers. So, by the communicative property, you’re equating the corps with supporting roles and soloists with extras.