taysteewonderbunny

Oh, you mean something light and fluffy such as won't land you in jail. Bummer.

*hugs* *more hugs* *and just one more hug because I like your hugs* However it works out, know that people love you, sweetie.

No way, dude! But you would look totally tubular falling down the stairs!

A stooper? And not a stupor? Please no. I humbly ask that you reconsider imbibing alcohol in large quantities for such a duration that you neglect and/or inhibit your intake of vitamins and minerals thus grossly accelerating bone loss resulting in early onset osteoporosis. Stand tall, dear one. Better things are on the horizon.

"If I could choose the way I was to die I would go falling through the hot summer sky Ribbons and bows tied to my hands and my feet..." http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fJq-hCWCxPM

And when it's not, it's not: Man survives lightning strike.

I understand your indignation at your situation, but it sounds like your mom is trying to make a compromise between her comfort level and your need to have romantic relationships while you are under her roof. Ultimately, as long as the house is in HER name as opposed to yours, her decisions as to who can stay trump your desires. She probably understands, though, that as an adult you have certain needs that require you a) to continue living with her, and b) have a boyfriend. Consequently, she is giving you an option that Offsets her expenses in having someone else in the house (those kilowatt hours and cubic meters of water add up, as does the food expense if your bf eats there), Compensates her somewhat for the intrusion on her privacy that a regular guest, who is not even HER guest, brings with it, Costs you and your bf less than renting a hotel room for the same 48 hour period, and Provides you an incentive to get your own place in the near future. It's doubtlessly not what you had hoped for, however it seems a fair compromise between what is her preference (that you lived on your own and your boyfriend didn't spend the night at her place) and yours. If this is STILL not working for you, I recommend that you discuss it with her reasonably and respectfully. Perhaps you can do (maybe even with your bf) some work around the house instead of paying $20, but you would have to be consistent in following through. Or, perhaps she intends on saving up this money to give back to you when you move out. Find out, but try to see things her way first.

That's rather to his point, isn't it? The problem with wrapping the world in pillows and cellophane is that although it makes it far less likely that anyone sustain a bruise, our chances of suffocation are greatly increased.

Sad. A dear friend of my family's, "Uncle" Dick Pullen (yes, I know it's an unfortunate name) is dying right now. He was diagnosed with bone cancer many years ago, but it's his heart that is killing him now. I haven't been that close to him since I was a child, but I will mourn his passing and feel very strongly for my mom and his wife who are very distraught.

Is this a shell for NS, a real web-development and marketing corp?

If the boy had an oppositional disorder, counseling wouldn't work. The psychological damage in those cases is often permanent. Look, I am not arguing that the woman had a right to a well boy. I am saying that as a human being, the boy has a right not to be treated as a commodity.

^ I understand what you are saying, but this is a boy, not a car or a house or any other large investment. I think she might have been within her rights to sue for assistance in obtaining psychological care. She may even have been right to have him institutionalized. Perhaps she was naive in her pursuit of the adoption and did not know how to verify his psychological condition. Perhaps she did know and the orphanage blatantly misled her. Still, there are many channels she ought to have pursued. Sending him back isn't one of them. Humans don't come with quality guarantees. Once you make the promise (in pregnancy, it's implicit, but in adoptions, explicit), there are no takebacks or second chances. Well, sadly, in adoptions, there are legal precedents for it. Sending the kid unattended on an international flight isn't one such.

I hope that you weren't driving the car when your brakes went out! Sincere wishes that this be rectified as inexpensively as possible.

I'm a-goin'.

The boy was speaking English (and understood English) very well in the video. It IS possible that he had a major emotional disorder generally attributive to a lack of interaction or abusive interaction in his infant and toddler years. Many of those disorders are NOT reversible. Or it is possible that he had some physical ailment such as a digestive disorder or neurological defect. Even if that is the case, though, and even in the case that the orphanage knew about the disorders and misled her, at most, she should only have expected some financial assistance then for his future care. He is a human being! There are no returns on children! They are not goods to be bartered, warrantied, and returned! Adoption is supposed to be as permanent as birthright. That is the point of it. That a child without a home finds one FOREVER. What if this was her biological child? Does she think that if she had her own baby and it had severe impairments she could just give it back? I don't care what her excuse is; that woman is a bitch and doesn't deserve to have any children in her care ever.

Yes, far too vague. I'd rather put stock in "I know it when I see it," and I hate that bit. Poor Britain. Poor, poor Britain. Hopefully this piece of legislation will get knocked back on its ass soon.

^ I think you are probably correct. Given my experience with Grosse Pointe South, administrators are loathe to step into youth disputes, first because they would rather believe they didn't happen at all, second because they aren't sure what to do with them, and third because they fear litigation from the parents of both parties. In the cases of both (a) my concerns in which a schizophrenic friend of mine had a psychotic break and threatened my life, and (b) my brother's having been the target of homophobic violence because I was thought to be a lesbian, the administrators did nothing. Fortunately, no further violence occurred, but the administrators did not know that would be the case. They just put their heads in the sand and hoped it would all blow over. (No, I don't have many fond high school memories.)

Happy birthday!

Thank you! I, too, am always learning.

I don't think so. It's in a subduction zone and is comprised of two granitic volcanoes. It's more likely to erupt or sink under a continental plate, but overpopulation will hardly be the cause of that...unless it turns out the citizens of Guam made a pact with the devil, j/k.

Um, beg to differ, but only minorly. The feet can also, and very often are, anapest (ta-ta-TUM), not just amphibrachic. Lines can be any combination of amphibrachs or anapests, but there must be three feet in lines 1 and 2, two feet in lines 3 and 4, and three feet again in the last line. In your own example, line 3 is composed of an amphibrach followed by an anapest, or else it is short one syllable.

Thank you, you did. I don't know why I didn't catch that. I am sorry for making you repeat yourself.