Nightingale

Respect for you or for the stripper or for women in general? If it's an issue of respect for the stripper herself, she probably wouldn't be stripping if she didn't want to, and she's paid very well for it. Honestly, I kind of envied the girls at my college who were strippers (about half of the dance majors). They graduated with no student loans, only worked a few hours a night, and most of them really liked their jobs. They didn't care if they had clothes on or not; they just wanted to dance and get paid for it. If it's an issue of respect for women in general, shouldn't women be able to work in any job they want to, and shouldn't we respect their choices?

Wouldn't bother me at all. If you trust the person you're about to marry, why worry about what they do at their party? if you don't trust them, why are you marrying them to begin with?

The statistics came from here: Reducing Gun Violence Reprinted from Focus on Law Studies, SPRING 2003, Volume XVIII, Number 2, published by the Division for Public Education of the American Bar Association. You originally wrote that it came from US DoJ. Then you said it came from OSU. Now you say it comes from the ABA. WHICH IS IT? The article on the OSU website (which is where I found it and quoted from it) is a reprint of the ABA article, which referenced the DOJ. I'm sure you can find the statistics if you want to disprove the ABA's interpretation of the data. You know I don't mind doing my research, but I really don't have time to go dig up all the DOJ reports right now. The bar exam is in six days, so I have time to take a study break now and then and post, but not to spend hours wading through the DOJ.

The statistics came from here: Reducing Gun Violence Reprinted from Focus on Law Studies, SPRING 2003, Volume XVIII, Number 2, published by the Division for Public Education of the American Bar Association.

"If you want to get rich, you start a religion." -L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology I think that pretty much says it all.

You know, I'm a gun owner, and I might actually support a gun ban amendment if it would actually work and do what gun control advocates claim. The evidence, however, all indicates that it would not. The below evidence indicates that banning guns here in the US would actually put private citizens in more danger, primarily because those kinds of gun bans simply disarm law-abiding citizens, and assure criminals that their victims will be unarmed. Violent crime in England has RISEN since the gun ban, and the statistics indicate that I am more than twice as likely to be assaulted in England than in the US. Criminals, by definition, are lawbreakers. What makes you think they're going to obey anti-gun laws but not anti-robbery laws? Just something to think about... ______________________Quote________________________ Since the late 1990s, [Great Britain] makes it practically impossible for a private citizen to possess a firearm. Few citizens own firearms. ... The number of gun crimes has continued to increase [in Britain], even since the most stringent laws were put in place. Criminals do not seem to have difficulty obtaining firearms.... Since 1995, the English rate for every type of violent crime, with the exception of murder and rape, has been far higher than in the U.S. For example, based on a U.S. Department of Justice study, in 1995 there were 8.8 assaults per 1,000 persons in the United States, compared with 20 assaults per 1,000 in England and Wales (their statistics are grouped). Robberies in England and Wales were 1.4 times higher, and burglary was nearly double the U.S. rate. Since then, British figures for violent crime have climbed, while ours have dropped. You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York. In the five years after the 1997 handgun ban, handgun crime in Britain doubled. In 2002 alone, gun crime rose by 35 percent, and handgun crime rose by 46 percent. English efforts to reduce the number of privately owned guns have succeeded only in disarming law-abiding people, but they have failed to disarm those inclined to misuse weapons. -www.secondamendmentcenter.org (Second Amendment Research Center, Ohio State University), emphasis added

This was almost five years ago, so no, I don't have his number. Looking back, I probably should've reported him to the cops. No evidence because the waitress had probably cleared the glasses by that point, but I still should've reported. I didn't think of it; I was just glad to get out of there. I was lucky; I saw what he was doing in a reflection in the glass behind the table.

Sometimes I'd have a friend call. Other times, I just set the alarm on my cell phone and pretend to answer it. That last one came in handy when the guy I was out with tried to drug my drink.

I thought he meant threats on DZ.com.

I agree that he's within his rights, but he's an asshole. That poor kid had to go all night without medicine, and ear infections can be damn painful. See the kid, write a script, and tell them not to come back. Somehow, I think Jesus would've seen the kid. According to the bible, Jesus was a guy who hung out with lepers. I don't think he'd mind a few tattoos.

I really would consider a special school in this case. Elementary and middle schools typically concentrate on getting basic facts into kids' heads (basic science, history, multiplication tables, vocabulary, etc). Your kid doesn't need that. He looks at something and it's in his brain. What your kid needs to learn is what to do with that information and how to differentiate between good and not-so-good sources of information. Being able to regurgitate information is only a small part of learning. A regular school is probably going to be too easy for him. All he has to do is look through the text and fill in the answers on the test. He's going to get bored, and bored kids can become behavior problems. He already instinctively knows how to assimilate information. You need to find a teacher who can actually teach him to use that skill to learn.

I hate having paper lying around. The more paper, the bigger mess my place is. I am not a neat person, but I'm very organized when it comes to my computer files, so I figured that the computer was probably the best way to keep track of stuff, and it would eliminate most of the paper that was cluttering up my life.

If it's something I need a record of, but don't actually need the original (credit card bills, utility bills, bank statements, warranty cards, etc...) it gets scanned to .pdf onto my computer, filed there, backed up, and the cd backup goes into the file cabinet and the original gets tossed, or in the case of car insurance, the original goes in the car since copies can be printed if necessary. If it's something I need the original for (pretty rare... stuff like bar exam registration confirmation), then it goes in alpha order in the top drawer of the file cabinet. Most of the stuff people keep aren't really things that you actually need the original documents for. You just need a record. When I had a dispute with my credit card company, pulling out the scanned statement was just as good as the original. You just scan them, label them by company.month.year (edison.02.2007), and file in the appropriate computer folder. My file structure looks like this: Records Folder---> year folders---> company folders---> scanned files At the end of the year, I take the scans from three years ago, burn them again onto CD, and then delete the scans from the hard drive, so I've only got three years at a time on the computer itself. The really nice thing is that most companies will now send e-bills instead of paper ones, so I just save those to the appropriate folders and don't have to scan the paper anymore. My phone bill, credit card, internet, bank statements and student loan statements all come that way. My computer pays those bills automatically, so once a month I download the bank statements and bill pay confirmations and file those away on the computer also. The only trick is that you have to make sure that your digital copy is backed up before you can throw the original away. As reliable as my mac is, sometimes hard drives do go bad.

Might be a USA PATRIOT Act violation... These days, smuggling toothpaste onto an airplane is a patriot act violation.

Issuing credit is the decision of the individual corporation. If they want to give credit to people with no SSN, that's their business, but I think it's probably a bad business decision, primarily due to the lack of reliable credit checks and reporting.

In spite of? He had a better than 50% approval even after the impeachment. Not sure what the in spite of was for. I was referring to her success after her husband's "indiscretions" ended up all over the world news. Depending on how she handled the situation, it could have been extraordinarily negative publicity for her.

Kitty is safely in Washington with Jeannie!

Provided I can get him on a plane. I've been on hold with the airline for an hour.

He's a "medium hair", so he looks like a slightly fluffier version of a short-hair, with a very fluffy tail. I call one of my cats "fuzzbutt", or "fuzzbrain" when he's done something particularly stupid such as fall in the toilet and close the lid. I think by now he answers to fuzzbutt more often than his real name.

I just had to show off the kitty. This cat is soooo beautiful!

Are you willing to pay shipping?

Looked like it from the pic I saw. Very cute little thing.

I know you're always willing to help a kitty in need, Michele =) I'd take him myself, but three cats aren't allowed at my new place. So... Kitten, anyone?

A friend of a friend has apparently come into possession of an absolutely adorable black kitten. They're not animal people and won't keep it, but they'd like to find a home for it. LA county animal shelter is a kill shelter, so they don't want to take it there, but they're having trouble finding it a home. I told them I'd see if any of you wonderful skydiver folk would like a new kitten. I'd take it, but my condo complex only allows two pets, and I've got two. The kitten is located in the hollywood area. If anyone can help, please let me know quickly. -Kris

Normally, I think kids shouldn't be rewarded for throwing fits. However, given that she's on an airplane full of other passengers who don't want to listen to her scream, candy is probably the easiest way to keep her quiet. At that point, courtesy to other passengers is more important than discipline.