eym_sirius

Regarding Chik-Fil-A, I would rather have responses standardized. The only alternative is to allow the employee to freestyle. You assume that it is not a pleasure for the employee to serve you, but that phrase has probably been explained to the employee to mean, "I'm happy to serve you because if you weren't here for me to serve you, I wouldn't have a job!" I recognize that there are two choices, a trained response or one that is "employee's choice" . I'll opt for the trained one. About the to-go box -- You can't blame the server for not living up to your uncommunicated expectations.

I think that TP "assumes the position" of confusion in order to make his point. It's posturing. It reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live skit, "Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5gPnUdbc8&feature=related

Ask your son about the locks. Usually, they are (or used to be) combination locks. Combination locks present a problem if the person doesn't turn the dial after he closes the locker. Sometimes, the locker will just open right up, because it's still on the last number. I'm not real hip to the newest technology, so I'm not even sure what-all an IPOD is. Is this something that he would use in school? Take to gym class? Is it possible that the person who has the locker in other periods or the person who had the locker in the previous quarter/semester could have just saved the combination (ass

YES! "No Problem" is not a proper response to "Thank You" "No Problem" is a proper response to "Is there a problem?"

I'm a fast eater and servers STILL want to try to snatch my plate before I'm done! About the person dining alone -- Many people travel on business and wish to sit down for a meal in a place other than the car. Others, really are alone, but that doesn't stop them from wanting to enjoy the dining experience. What they don't want is to be REMINDED that there's no one else. "Party of --- ONE????"

When you walk in the front door, the hostess' stand is typically right there. "Just two in your party?" I'll say something about 2 not being very much of a party or something. No, the tables aren't prepared for a certain number of guests. You know -- they have to take the extra silverware away so that you don't take it home and they haven't filled the water glasses or brought the menus to the table yet. Still, good manners suggests that the first thing that a HOST or HOSTESS should do is to welcome you, instead of asking "How many in your party?"

When seating your guests, It's better to say, Welcome to ___________________. Would you like for us to prepare a table for two this evening? Or maybe - Will you need a table for more than two this evening? Not: Just two of you? You two dining alone? You don't have anybody else? When there's a single person dining alone, you sometimes hear: Are you by yourself? Anybody with you? Just you? All alone tonight? Or the dreaded -- party of one??? It seems to me that people in the hospitality business should be gracious as they welcome people to their dining establishments. S

There are a heck of a lot of scams out there and one of them involves unauthorized purchases against PayPal or other such online payment systems. Report any unauthorized amounts, even if it is less than one dollar. An unchallenged record of a payment establishes a prior business relationship and makes it easier for the scammer to hit your account for big bucks. If you have PayPal and haven't checked that account in a while, take a look, just to make sure that it's on the level. Check your bank account history to make sure that there are no charges against your account that you haven't auth

No! You have a lovely face between your ears!! JK LPPT - Well, not about the lovely face thing.... You're really a smart chick!

LPPT - Garden-talk reminds me of one of my favorite movies about gardeners. Did you ever see it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcPQ9gww_qc

Are you talking in code again? I'll give it a try! "In Spring, the gardener's thoughts turn towards plowing and seeding"

No one can figure him out!

What??? I'm not "Turning Everything You Say" into anything. You made that characterization! Don't hold me responsible for YOUR characterization! And don't play the victim. Daydreaming about a pretend world in which you're the hero -- that doesn't make you a bad person! But clearly, this KNOWLEDGEMAN is you! Why else do you continue to seek validation in black and white terms? "Working for the man" is also an issue with you, is it not? You're just projecting these experiences from your life and sharing them in hyperbole as absolute good and absolute evil. The truth is, of course, that this

When I was a kid, we had a Veg-O-Matic for making french fries. Skeptical at first, I tried it and it was awesome! And it lasted for years!!

Don't buy these things at the dollar store: Tools - not a good value Medication - this should be obvious Off-Brand food - not a good value, could make you sick Make up or anything topically applied to the skin! A Valentine's Day Present for your wife!!!

The premise is wrong. Everyone has knowledge; No one has all of it and no one has none of it. Take your last comment. You can both have a job and have knowledge. "Knowledge", in your world, gives a person all of these super powers! But that is comic book stuff. It's not real. But keep on building up this comic book hero, "KNOWLEDGEMAN" in your imagination. I've never thought of myself as a comic book hero. Creating that pretend-world where you're the hero - That must be fun, if you have the time to daydream! So -- what's it like to be "KNOWLEDGEMAN"?

Very unacceptable. The judge should have set a reasonable time and held the defense to it. At some point, the judge will have to put his foot down and hold people in contempt if they're not ready.

MJF - you know that the guy on death row had a trial, right? And that his attorneys contested everything that was contestable, including human error? You misunderstand what I'm saying about DNA evidence. I'm not saying that because the prosecution uses DNA evidence that EVERY person that comes up a match is a criminal! I'm saying in cases where it DOES mean that they guy commited the crime, it can provide proof, 100 percent , that THIS individual and no other in the world, commited this murder. It's only when THIS criteria is met, of 100 percent positive (subject to an additional review,

Pubby, you and ZC are both arguing the death penalty! With the death penalty having been declared Constitutional, you're arguing a moot point. While you copied my post, you didn't respond to it. I know that you don't agree with the death penalty. You're saying that the death penalty is the issue, but it's not, with Ledford and with others! They ARE ON DEATH ROW. Let me say it again, this time with the dashes that mean that this is the point you're not getting -------------- THEY ARE ON DEATH ROW -------------------- Legally. So the matter is, do they serve a lifetime in prison and THEN face ex

I understand that 23 years ago, there wasn't the forensic technology that is available today. So I understand the "no rush to justice" thing from days gone by. Now, the justice system needs to catch up with technology and have the furnace fires ready when a person is found to be 100 percent guilty, with a zero chance of error. It's not applicable to all cases, but when DNA can be used to convict someone with certainty, he should get an automatic appeal/review, then to the gurney and then to the ashpit. The whole thing should take no more than a year and a half/two years. Emmanuel Hammond?

Pubby -- In the wild, wild west and in the case of Leo Frank -------- these dots are here to emphasize the point that I'm making --------- Did they have DNA evidence and other such forensic tools that could pinpoint THE PERSON on this earth who commited the murder? I'll let you mull that over for a moment so that you can consider the technological advances that apply today that did not apply then. Done mulling? Great. Let's proceed. Any reference to the olden times when science got it wrong is a red herring. This is a new day in forensic science! Now, when I talk about "fast track", I'm t

The fast track would be, not a part of the TRIAL per se, but would come AFTER THE SENTENCING PHASE - AFTER the criminal has been condemned to death row. THIS would preclude additional appeals and it would have to be the result of laws which would specify the details. Okay, there would be appeals of the legalities of the fast track, but once the Supreme Court clears the way for the constitutionality of the fast track ----- Then there will be a closer tie from the crime to the punishment. I think that forensics makes some of the cases airtight. We see cases where the odds of the DNA evidenc

I'm constantly amazed at people and what makes them tick. There's a problem, though. I like to disassemble them to examine their inner workings. After I put them back together, they're never the same again! And I have some parts left over! It's good that you like what you do. It's the best way to live a life!! Hey, I haven't disassmbled you yet.........

It's a time-honored tradition. I used to LOVE the looks that Tip O'Neill would give when Reagan was speaking! Rolling his eyes, shaking his head...... It was quite comical. I'm sure that Boner is going to resurrect the tradition!

Excellent!!