taysteewonderbunny

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.

I am going to suspend judgment until more data is released to the media following the filing of formal charges on Mr. Treacy, April 19th.

Okay, 'aliened' as I referred to it in my post was pertinent to the distinction drawn exclusively in the source I posted where the author seemed to have coined the word 'a-LIEN-ed' as opposed to 'A-li-en-ed.' Most of my commentary immediately following was facetious griping regarding what I felt to be superfluous coinage. Your definition, above, of 'A-li-en-ed' is fine with me. I conceded, upon reviewing the Wiki entry I posted, that there may be a distinction drawn between the meanings of 'inalienable' and 'unalienable,' though, grammatically speaking, I would prefer that there not be. Nonetheless, if it is helpful to you in the ideas that you want to discuss to make such a distinction, I am asking that you please define both 'inalienable' and 'unalienable' briefly and declare which you believe should apply to the Bill of Rights. So, I am not arguing at this point. I am asking for clarification before we proceed.

Sorry, poor choice of words. I meant a very large group of irate citizens, some of whom have ulterior motives (not the majority, but some) whose demands are enough to overwhelm a department. A facsimile of the document WAS produced, but then the department was overwhelmed with naysayers who claimed that document was false and then demanded the original. You aren't suggesting that Americans can't be a mob, are you? If that's the case, BOTH (major) parties are woefully misplaced in having police presence with riot gear at their national conventions. Americans aren't generally given to mobs, but they can be incited to violence or made to panic, e.g. trampling deaths on Black Friday--and that's over a "good" thing. Perhaps some Democrats would want some proof if the issue was highly contentious. That is only responsible. But, then, it is my sincere hope that once a document was produced, even in facsimile, but an approved and accredited facsimile, the issue would be dropped and focus returned to something more productive, just as it was when McCain's eligibility was questioned.

It just seems crazy, though, to have to release the original document to a mob demanding it. It would seem the department would have some authority regarding its responsibility for its safekeeping. I know that even when I ask for MY birth certificate, I am only given a facsimile then embossed with a raised seal; the state keeps the original for safekeeping so that verifiable facsimiles can be later produced from it.

TWB, the grammar nazi's take on it: 'privileges' is misspelled in topic title. I humbly ask that someone please rectify the error. Also, the preferred word is 'inalienable.' Gaf, I do not know of a formalized distinction between the words. In some cases, the prefix 'un-' is substituted with the prefix 'in-;' in those cases, they are the same meme. 'Inalienable' is preferential to 'unalienable' in English because 'alienable' begins with a long vowel sound that is not a long 'i.' Or so I seem to recall from my linguistics course. You are correct that sometimes 'in-' has a meaning distinct from 'un-,' which means 'not,' but in those cases, 'in-' is a substitute for the meme 'en-' which means "of, with, or into." Since 'enalienable' (sic) is nonsensical, one can correctly deduce that 'inalienable' and 'unalienable' mean the same thing. I know that not everyone agrees with this, that 'inalienable' and 'unalienable' mean the same thing, because the author of this source has drawn a distinction based partly on legislation. HOWEVER, I don't know what 'aliened' (pronounced a-LEENd) is supposed to mean unless not liened or incapable of being liened. If it is the former, that would mean that 'unalienable' means NOT not liened, or, more simply, liened (the more common word is 'loaned'). If it means the latter, why add a second prefix at all? Additionally, this author based a good part of his definition on his inference from two different definitions in different editions of the same dictionary, meanings he assumes to be implicit--this is hardly parallel to the actual etymology of the word. In defense of my argument that they should NOT be distinct, I offer: Merriam Webster On-line dictionary's definition of inalienable and unalienable. TWB, the philosopher's take on it: you didn't think it would be that simple, did you? Of course philosophers had to make a mess of it. Just look at all the crap one can find on the subject of 'inalienable' versus 'unalienable' in this Wiki post. Yet, if I grant that there IS a distinction (and I am somewhat conceding that point), Gaf, please go so far as to give explicit definitions. I can not even so much as agree with you unless I know of what it is you speak. Please note, also, that both words were used in varying copies of the Declaration of Independence, that our founders seemed to vacillate between words, if not definitions. Read about it HERE. What my opinion is of it all, I will write after some sleep.