I am going to be honest, this sounds utterly stupid and mind-numbing.

The proverb: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” is supposed to be a statement that desire without action is meaningless. Thanks to the Protestant Reformation it has become a common term to dismiss any claim that your intent was noble. If you “never meant to hurt anyone” then your crime is a lack of…

How does this only have so few stars? The teacher lives 350 miles from McKinney. She does not teach teach in McKinney. Yet the title of the article STILL says that she is a McKinney teacher.

As an aside, can’t you re-contribute your withdrawal for the tax year in which you withdrew money?

I was just priming everyone for the eventual issues. I think there will be some great common-sense advice. I just think most of it involves being mildly empathetic and intelligent.

Isn’t there also the argument for flexibility?

This isn’t going to be the most productive discussion. People don’t actually know what they want or how they can be manipulated. The customer service reps will say things which they believe to be true, but aren’t actually true. The true ways to manipulate them will be denied.

The problem: Wine is made from fermented grape juice. There are literally no other ingredients.

This is nice, but it reminds me of the short-sighted “economics” that create a lot of problems.

Isn’t pork lard relatively healthy? Why would you want to eat a food that had stripped all of the delicious pork lard out of it? I don’t see any evidence that eating 96% pure beef is going to be healthier for your heart than eating pork with fat.

We shouldn’t eat steak because it is using antibiotics? I agree they shouldn’t be using it, but it isn’t going to impact your health directly.

I don’t know if this is relevant to the article, but it is worth mentioning that some of the issues with GMO foods are entirely farmer-induced. When people try to paint the entire fight as the little farmer against the “evil corporation” they frequently ignore that farmers are ignorant assholes. The companies are…

I was responding to someone who suggested that all children should be in rear-facing car seats until age 4. I have seen no data that validates the position that placing a 4-year-old in a RFCS reduces fatality. I have seen no data that suggests that placing a 4-year-old in a RFCS reduces serious injuries.

Well, that is just wrong.
The likelihood of any injury is 5x greater in a front-facing car seat(FFCS) when the child is younger than 1 or there is a side impact collision. In other situations there may be little or no difference. OVERALL the safety factor is only about 15% greater. 15% is NOT 500%.

I will mock anyone who is attempting to keep their kid safe at all costs.

Injuries, not fatalities. Car wrecks are inherently dangerous and injuries are very likely. While it is nice that people are preventing injuries, we really need to question the cost of this prevention.

Absolutely. Also, wrap your child in a tight cocoon of plastic wrap before going outside.

Also, it fits with how the original battlefront games were played. The modern Battlefield games owe a lot to Battlefront. It was the first game that really tried to push the vehicle/soldier aspect heavily. They also did it in a fun way.

This is known as "sunken cost fallacy", and it is very well understood. People don't want to throw away money. Even the dumbest congressman knows that it looks better to spend $10 million extra than to stop a $1 billion project because it is overbudget.

What exactly are you asking for? I use the app. If someone forgets to give a dose, it sends the buddy a message.