text:
Friday, September 14, 2012
Reports Say Passenger Prevented from Boarding Flight in Retaliation for Her Attitude? There's More to the Story…
67 comments:
- Sandra's Sister said...
Yet again, the TSA is calling the passenger a liar.
I heard your agent tell the woman that she was prevented from flying in retaliation for not allowing the screener to "test" her drink.
And that screener rubbing his nose with his hand while holding the test strip!
- September 14, 2012 at 8:14 PM
- Sandra said...
She should have just dropped her drink on the screener's shoes instead of drinking it. That's what I'm going to do if ever approached. These "tests" are nothing but a demonstration of the TSA's impotency.
- September 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM
- David Ridge said...
Good Job or Job well done!!!
- September 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM
- TSORon said...
There is ALWAYS more to the story than is ever reported in the news.
- September 14, 2012 at 8:30 PM
- Anonymous said...
As evidenced by the contortions in this post that are more complicated than usual, there indeed seems to be "more to the story."
True to form, he blames the passenger, who "ignored officers and then became verbally abusive." But he strangely notes that the "video circulating on the internet" doesn't show the passenger's misconduct.
Also true to form, he notes that the TSA "thoroughly reviewed the incident." But oddly, instead of the boilerplate wording that affirmatively vindicates the officers ("the officers acted properly"), there's a murkier statement that "this passenger was screened in accordance with standard procedures." Could the wording reflect the abrupt cutoff of the video, which makes the usual vindication less credible?
The conclusion about the "goal" of getting passengers on their flights and safely to their destinations doesn't shed any light on what happened. And strangely absent is the usual wording that vindicates or commends the officers, or that reiterates that the TSA is always right.
There is only a statement at the beginning of the post about how TSA officers "are held to the highest levels of professional and ethical standards." By using the passive voice, Bob raises more questions than he answers: What are those standards? Do they include "humbling" passengers, or resolving problems by bellowing "Do you want to fly today?" Who holds them to those standards? What are the consequences of violating those standards?
The reason for mentioning this is that too many of us have witnessed behavior from officers that is clearly not "the highest levels of professional and ethical standards." And every time TSA officers are accused of unprofessional conduct, the TSA's investigation always finds that "the officers acted properly." By all appearances, officers have free rein to do whatever they want, with understanding that the TSA will always stand behind them and blame the passenger for anything that goes wrong. That doesn't sound like any kind of accountability.
This all makes it quite plausible that the officer in question may have decided that this passenger had the wrong attitude, and needed to be "humbled" (as our friend Kellymae once put it). Since "humbling" passengers who deserve it is apparently within the "professional and ethical standards" for officers, the TSA may not have considered it improper. But it's not something they want to talk about.
This post is even more content-free than usual, which invites this kind of speculation. I have to assume that there is "more to the story" than the TSA is willing to admit. Bob was probably ordered to respond to it, and this was the best he could do to dispose of this incident.
- September 14, 2012 at 8:36 PM
- Mike Wallette said...
Yet another, "We screened this passenger according to policy" blog entry. Why am I not surprised?
If you wanted to stick a swab in my drink, I'd tell you to shove it, too. You've screened me at the security checkpoint. The drink was purchased inside the "secure" area. What threat, exactly, are trying to "protect" the flying public from?
As far as "the highest professional and ethical standards," what a joke. Do you mean standards like the TSO who was just arrested on kiddie porn charges? Or perhaps you mean the TSOs who have been accused of racial profiling? Maybe you mean the TSO who was running a prostitution ring in his off-time, or the TSOs who were taking bribes to let drugs past the security checkpoints, or...or...or...?
Yeah, I'm not impressed by TSA's "professional and ethical standards." That's great that you are "protecting" America from the terrorists. I just want to know, who is going to protect us from *you*?
- September 14, 2012 at 9:06 PM
- Anonymous said...
Supposedly, this woman refused to have her drink tested. But she finished her drink, therefore there was nothing to test. Which rule did she break?
Here's the transcript:
Woman: "Do you think that I am honestly a threat…?"
TSA agent: "No, no, no, but with your attitude…"
Woman: "Let me get this straight. This is retaliatory for my attitude. This is not making the airways safer. It's retaliatory."
TSA: "Pretty much…yes."
Also, the passenger stated this in the video's description in youtube:
"I was able to get on the very next flight out of Houston-and even managed an upgrade! (thanks United) "
How was it that the airline employees made the call to keep her off the flight, then immediately rebooked her? If the airline honestly thought she was a threat, they would not be putting her on their aircraft. Even if somehow it is true that the airline made the final call, I suspect it was because of the TSA agents made some very "persuasive" (or demanding) statements to the airline employees.
- September 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM
- Vinny Marinello said...
Some people think that they do not have to comply with the same rules as others do and I noticed that some have a few drinks then want to give all involved a hard time. They should be barred from the flight until they calm down..
- September 14, 2012 at 9:13 PM
- Anonymous said...
Kudos to TSA for what you do to keep us safe. Keep up the great work under a fantastic leader, Mr. Pistole. And this blog is an excellent tool to set the record straight. Kudos!
- September 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM
- RB said...
Bob, you seem to have left out a lot of information so lets try to sort out what really happened.
"But what you may not have heard is that the passenger refused a random screening procedure."
The lady claims that she consumed a beverage bought in the sterile area instead of submitting to a TSA Beverage test. Is that true?
"We also viewed the video circulating on the internet (although only part of the video is actually available) and watched as the TSA officer began to explain that screening is designed to make passengers safer."
The TSA employee clearly states that the action was retaliatory. To claim otherwise is nothing more than a bald face lie.
So tell us what happens if we should choose to consume a beverage rather than letting a TSA screener contaminate our property so it is no longer fit to consume?
Once again, as always, TSA is claiming that TSA did no wrong. Bob, that is a well worn broken record. We heard the words and it is clear that TSA took an illegal action against this person.
Own up to it!
- September 14, 2012 at 10:29 PM
- susan said...
There is always more to a story, do not believe everything you read or hear, unless you were there in person.
woeking for the airline for 33 years, nothing surprises me. Once the airline is aware of the situation, we always advise the captain , he discusses with the inflight crew and make the call. for the safety of the other passenger 40thousand ft above the ground, you cannot take the chance on someone who is boarding the flight with a recent problem.
- September 14, 2012 at 10:37 PM
- Nicholas Samson said...
Hell, if everyone were prevented from boarding based on their attitude, half of the morning commuters wouldn't be allowed to fly.
- September 14, 2012 at 10:43 PM
- Nicholas Samson said...
Hell, if everyone with a bad attitude were prevented from flying, there'd only be half as many commuters on morning flights.
- September 14, 2012 at 10:44 PM
- Chris Boyce said...
Just two words, Blogdad Bob and Assistant Administrator Pistole: PROVE IT.
There is evidence on YouTube clearly revealing that that the screening clerk retaliated. Convince me I'm wrong.
By the way, I really don't like being patronized and I have a long memory.
- September 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM
- pathfinder58 said...
I read the story on Yahoo, and couldn't understand what really happened. She reported that she had gone through security and purchased the water afterward. Then she refused to let them test it. Was she at the gate?
- September 14, 2012 at 10:55 PM
- Anonymous said...
Please set the record straight by posting a video, with sound, of the totality of the incident. I experienced an incident recently when a close relative was delayed by a TSA officer claiming my relative refused to submit to a random screening, when my relative was never told by any TSA officer that a random screening was required. If the TSA officer had told my relative that a random screening was required, my relative would have been happy to agree to it, and did agree to it as soon as the requirement for such a random screening was clearly explained. Having experienced that event first hand, I am not about to accept, without video proof, that the facts are as claimed by any TSA officials.
I am sure you have the authority to post videos of anyone who passes through TSA security areas, and have the right to obscure the identities of TSA officials in making that video, provided the audio is clear, even if the audio disguises the TSA officials' voices.
- September 14, 2012 at 11:45 PM
- Anonymous said...
I notice you did not specify the "random security procedure" in question. Could you please explain what it was? Was it chemical testing of a beverage purchased INSIDE the sterile area?
If so, what exactly are a passenger's rights in such a situation? Are they REQUIRED to comply or be removed from the sterile area? What happens if they drink the beverage and hand the screener an empty cup? What if they throw away the beverage instead of allowing the screener to "test" it? Will the passenger be removed from the sterile area for such actions?
- September 14, 2012 at 11:52 PM
- Patrick Mannion said...
Just gonna go ahead and do trolls the job for them and say "WHEREZ DA PROOF BOB!!!???!?!?!?!?!1/1/1oneone"
- September 15, 2012 at 12:29 AM
- Anonymous said...
This post didn't answer any questions at all. it certainly didn't "set the record straight." You've provided no indication whatsoever that this woman presented any threat to security.
I don't care if she ignored your requests to test her water by drinking it. I don't care if she was "verbally abusive" to your employees. They deserved it.
- September 15, 2012 at 4:06 AM
- oblivion2k said...
Yes Bob, this is more to this story. She choose to drink her beverage instead of having it tested. It was inside her stomach. It was no longer a threat to aviation security. The agents got upset and punished her for not complying with an absurd order.
If this was really about security, they would have tested the empty bottle, and left her alone. This is about retaliation, and domination. They want to prove a point: The TSA are in control, and no passenger, no senator, no court of law, can stop us. Stop fighting and give up your freedoms.
Is it really so much to ask for a federal agency we give billions to every year to exercise a little common sense? If the passenger drinks the beverage, get over it. You know it's an absurd procedure anyways.
- September 15, 2012 at 6:45 AM
- Anonymous said...
How dare she refuse to submit! Doesn't she know that this is for her own good and if she had nothing to hide she shouldn't worry! Next thing you know some nutcase will start talking about Constitutional rights to be allowed to be secured in her persons and effects. Submit, resistance is futile!
- September 15, 2012 at 8:53 AM
- Mike Toreno said...
Clerk Bob, so what you're saying is that the clerk at IAH illegally detained the passenger and called the police. Because the passenger did nothing wrong, the clerk did not press charges, in order to avoid being prosecuted for filing a false police report.
Time passed while the passenger was being illegally detained by the clerk. By the time the clerk was forced to admit that the passenger had done nothing wrong, the time for boarding had expired, so that the "airline employees, not TSA, made the call about whether to allow this passenger to board their flight".
So the point you're trying to obfuscate is that your clerk detained the passenger for no reason, causing her to miss her flight.
Another point you're trying to obfuscate is that the TSA is useless. The screening of liquids at the checkpoint can't be relied on. Liquids are the only thing the stop with any kind of regularity, so if the checkpoint screening of liquids can't be relied on, the TSA provides no security. In fact, the laziness of the clerks causes inefficient screening and, thus, concentrations of passengers at the checkpoint. Therefore, the only vulnerability to terrorism in air travel (to an attack on the passengers at the checkpoint) is caused by the TSA.
- September 15, 2012 at 9:49 AM
- Anonymous said...
I continually see incompetence laziness etc. With TSA employees. Through TSA we have given uneducated inferiority complexed people the right to be rude to have authority over us. Is this really a democracy? Why are we allowing this behavior and the system to take away our rights? I find it totally unacceptable.
- September 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM
- Anonymous said...
Assuming you are being honest about the online video distorting the facts - post the ENTIRE video as proof! Failure to do so causes readers to believe you are NOT being honest!
- September 15, 2012 at 11:32 AM
- Anonymous said...
Bob, the truth is that she "voluntarily surrendered" her liquid into her stomach, thereby rendering moot your random screening. This thoroughly confused your screener, who then needlessly escalated the situation. TSA screwed up, just let it go.
- September 15, 2012 at 11:40 AM
- Anonymous said...
Bob said: "...We also viewed the video circulating on the internet (although only part of the video is actually available) and watched as the TSA officer began to explain that screening is designed to make passengers safer. The video abruptly ends before the officer is able to answer the questions fully..."
You reviewed the SAME video I saw on the internet, concluded that the passenger was verbally abusive, and concluded that the passenger was not prevented from flying as an act of retaliation? How in the world did you come to those conclusions based on that video? Are you taking the word of the screener over the word of the passenger in spite of the video? Do you have access to another recording of the incident? If so, share it as evidence of your credibility!
- September 15, 2012 at 12:33 PM
- Anonymous said...
The vagueness and obscurity of details in this post make it even less credible than Bob's usual responses to "incidents." I did some Googling, and found that Bob was right about one thing. There really is more to the story that what's visible behind Bob's smokescreen.
It appears that the "random screening procedure," to which Bob alludes with such masterful vagueness, was a swab test of a water bottle purchased inside the sterile area.
The passenger understandably did not want to drink water contaminated with whatever unknown chemicals are in the test swab. So rather than "voluntarily abandoning" the overpriced bottle, she drank it. Angered by the brazen disobedience, the TSO exercised his or her authority to humble the passenger. (That's presumably what Bob meant with his allusion to a speech "explain[ing] that screening is designed to make passengers safer.") When the passenger was not humbled, conduct ensued that required police intervention.
The police and the airline quickly determined that the passenger was not a threat. Not only did they allow her to board the flight, the offered her an upgrade. That can only suggest the airline employees, in their own investigation that's at least as credible as the TSA's, found the TSA employees failed to meet "the highest levels of professional and ethical standards."
I can only assume that Bob was ordered to respond to this incident. But he had a problem. The incident not only casts aspersions on the behavior of TSA "officers" but shows the indefensible absurdity of a "random screening procedure" that renders legitimate liquids unfit for consumption. The best he could do was to obscure the story with vagueness and selective omissions, and then spin it into the standard template of "The TSA acted properly. The passenger lied. TSA employees are ethical and professional."
I find the accounts Google turned up much more credible than Bob's inept obfuscation. Even if "proper procedures were followed" and the screeners met the TSA's "professional and ethical standards," what this incident really seems to show is a "random screening procedure" that makes no sense at all. The unknown and unaccountable TSA official who thought passengers would uncomplainingly accept the TSA "randomly" spoiling their overpriced drinks with chemical swabs is clearly divorced from reality.
But given that the TSA considers itself infallible and cannot even acknowledge that a problem like could exist, they obviously will never reconsider such a stupid "screening procedure." If it creates a problem, it's the passenger's fault.
- September 15, 2012 at 3:02 PM
- Anonymous said...
I viewed the video and I firmly believe TSA retaliated against this woman because she consumed the drink. And the TSO did state his actions were retaliatory. Bob, you and your fellow TSA posters are always going to say TSA never makes a mistake and that air travelers are always treated with courtesy and respect. You can continue your support of the blue suited, self important, TSA employees until hell freezes over but my personal experience has more often than not been just the opposite. TSA personnel, in the majority of my trips through American airports, have shown rude, caustic, impersonal attitudes. I have been yelled at so often that I have forced my self to just ignore the rudeness and not even try to address the issue becasue I know nothing will be done other than retaliation toward me that could result in me missing my flight. There's an old saying, "you can't fight city hall", well I'm convinced you can't fight TSA. You people have the power and you know it and no TSA employee gives a second thought about the way air travelers are treated. Admit it, you guys know you are teflon and don't worry how you treat us. Like you said, TSA is held to the highest standards, too bad those are TSA standards and not the standards of the flying public.
- September 15, 2012 at 3:45 PM
- Sandra said...
Where's my post from yesterday, Bob?
You didn't like that I might have given others an idea of what to do if they are approached by a screener for drink "testing?"
Not to worry, many people already have the same idea.
Or perhaps you didn't like that I said something to the effect of procedures such as these only demonstrate the impotency of the TSA.
Screen shot. And if this isn't posted I'll send that screen shot to the DHS OIG. (That is, when that webpage is accessible again. .)
- September 15, 2012 at 4:35 PM
- Yasmin '14 said...
Bob, It was obviously an oversight on your part to forget to post the link to the YouTube video in which the screener admits that his actions were retaliatory. Given your tremendous workload, I can certainly understand how this oversight occurred.
Don't worry about it. I know you are very busy these days.
Here is the link: http://tinyurl.com/8cvhd8x
Thanks for all you do. I'm a journalism major at Faber University in PA and hope to land a job in a government public affairs office after graduation.
- September 15, 2012 at 9:54 PM
- Anonymous said...
Who cares what he said or she said. What matters is the fact that the TSA employee harrassed (yes, harrassed) the passenger. Tell me that he (the TSA employee) followed policy, and I will tell you that the TSA's policy is to harrass passengers. Here's why....... If screeners were truly trying to find liquid explosives in the sterile area, then they wouldn't target passengers who are carrying drinks out in the open. Instead, they would be treating discarded items in garbage cans no differently than pieces of abandoned luggage, and testing the discarded liquids that were placed in there. If the TSA wasn't into playing these silly Security Theater games, then testing passenger liquids would be taking place at the checkpoints where we currently have no other option other than to discard our liquids before passing through. You know this, Bob (and the TSA). Don't talk down to the American people the way you just did in this blog post. That approach is a prime example of why your agency is so mistrusted by the public and in the crosshairs of Congress.
- September 16, 2012 at 3:46 AM
- Anonymous said...
Let your readers judge for themselves.
- September 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM
- RB said...
TSA has the manpower and resources to harass travelers at the gate but not the manpower or resources to inspect all cargo loaded on passenger aircraft and function that Congress mandated TSA to do several years ago.
TSA has the manpower and resources to harass travelers and test beverages purchased inside the sterile area but does not have the manpower or resources to comply with a courts order or the Administrative Procedures Act.
Why are taxpayers funding TSA, a criminal organization?
- September 16, 2012 at 6:05 PM
- Anonymous said...
If the video link from the anonymous commenter on September 16, 2012 11:50 AM truly represents what happened in this "incident," then Bob is clearly wrong in claiming that (as always) the officer acted properly.
The video unambiguously shows the officer acknowledging that he was retaliating against the passenger's "attitude."
Bob has repeated numerous times that TSA procedures expressly prohibit retaliatory action by officers. The usual context for disclosing this information (about procedures that are otherwise secret) is to dismiss passengers' claims of retaliatory patdowns, searches or other "screening procedures." Since retaliation is against TSA procedures, it cannot happen. Therefore, any passenger who claims it did happen must be lying. And he can always back up that conclusion by citing the TSA's investigation of the incident in question, which finds 100% of the time that the officers acted properly.
But here the officer admitted that whatever happened (which wasn't on the video) was in retaliation for the passenger's "attitude." Because Bob has told us repeatedly that retaliation is prohibited, the video shows the officer admitting that he acted improperly. Yet the TSA's "thorough review" found just the opposite.
Maybe if Bob finally gives up his untenable insistence that officers are incapable of ever acting improperly, his posts (and his reviled agency) might gain some needed credibility. I'm not completely convinced that the video is an accurate record of this incident. But I find it more credible than Bob's contorted prevarication, which is even more dubious than his usual boilerplate dismissal of "incidents."
The TSA may have so much contempt for the public that they don't care whether their statements are credible. But if an increasing number of Americans see the TSA as a bloated arrogant bureaucracy of Keystone Kops obsessed with pointless "screening procedures" and weekly statistics, why wouldn't terrorists have the same perception? John Pistole apparently does not realize that credibility does matter.
- September 16, 2012 at 6:44 PM
- Anonymous said...
While cleaning up my computer's desktop, I discovered a copy of an article by Kip Hawley, in the Wall Street Journal back in April. The title is "Why Airport Security Is Broken—And How To Fix It."
Hawley, who is in a unique position to offer insight into the secretive TSA, described an intransigent bureaucracy intent on erecting roadblocks to improvements that might make airport security effective rather than merely harassment:
"More than a decade after 9/11, it is a national embarrassment that our airport security system remains so hopelessly bureaucratic and disconnected from the people whom it is meant to protect. Preventing terrorist attacks on air travel demands flexibility and the constant reassessment of threats. It also demands strong public support, which the current system has plainly failed to achieve."
But he has one critical observation that this post, along with too many others on this blog, particularly affirms: "The relationship between the public and the TSA has become too poisonous to be sustained."
Bob's numerous posts like this, whose only purpose is to condescendingly dismiss reported incidents of TSA misconduct as either lies or the passenger's fault, are doses of the arsenic or strychnine to which Hawley refers. If these posts represent the TSA's idea of "public relations," it only proves Hawley's assertion that the TSA is "hopelessly bureaucratic and disconnected from the people whom it is meant to protect."
- September 16, 2012 at 7:36 PM
- Anonymous said...
It's my understanding that this woman didn't want her drink tested and consumed it instead of allowing it to be tested. This drink was purchased on the secure side of the airport. I don't blame her for not wanting chemicals around her drink. You say that the test chemicals are non-toxic, so are you willing to tell us what the chemicals are?
You say she became verbally abusive and that is why she was thrown out. Let's say someone refused the testing in the same way, by consuming the liquid, but said nothing to the TSA worker. Would that person be thrown out too for refusing the test?
This testing drinks at the gate seems to be security theater at its finest. If someone managed to smuggle liquid explosives to the gate area, why would they have it out in the open and drinking it? Wouldn't they just keep it in their carryon?
- September 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM
- Anonymous said...
It amazes me how some people can be so ignorant. What the powers that be at TSA allow is not any fault of the officers working day in and day out to keep people safe. The methods we use to screen the public are also handed down to the officers by people who make substantially more money. With this being said the public with the chips on their shoulders who think they are making a statement by harrassing an overworked, yet underpaid officer are directing their attitudes at the wrong people. There are people from all walks of life with tremendous talent and skills who happen to work for TSA, including some veterans and former law enforcement. Before you put all of TSA into a huge group, remember everyone is an individual.
- September 17, 2012 at 9:06 AM
- Anonymous said...
Testing does not involve sticking ANYTHING into your drink.
- September 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM
- Anonymous said...
The TSA officer ADMITTED that what he was doing was retaliatory. I don't think any TSA officer should be permitted to perform ANY action out of spite, which is what the officer was doing. If an officer can't be professional, they have no business being in that job.
And why are drinks purchased in the so-called "sterile" area being tested, anyway? Could it be that TSA is realizing its own personnel are largely incompetent and poorly trained? (After all, they recently missed an entire live cat!)
- September 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM
- Anonymous said...
So if a passenger refuses a screening (groping), TSA can press charges? Please explain this.
- September 17, 2012 at 8:02 PM
- Anonymous said...
"When the officer arrived and observed the behavior firsthand, he asked if TSA wanted to press charges. We declined. "
Really? The officer really asked "the TSA" if it wanted to press charges? Wow, the police officer was also a district attorney? And what, please tell us, would "the TSA" have preferred in the way of charges? Becoming verbally abusive? Not a crime. Disturbing the peace? Can't charge it unless the officer sees it (in most jurisdictions).
More likely, the officer decided there was nothing to it but a few raised voices. The passenger took the next flight.
It is likely that important points of what you've posted, Bob, are incorrect. Making things up doesn't help your effort to make the TSA look like an honest "law enforcement" agency.
- September 17, 2012 at 10:28 PM
- Anonymous said...
Small world! Look at a quote from the Boston CBS station:
"I do get verbally assaulted quite constantly," Patrick Mannion, a TSO union representative told WBZ-TV. "I'm just trying to do my job."
Stay professional, Patrick!
- September 17, 2012 at 10:45 PM
- Anonymous said...
Woman: "Let me get this straight. This is retaliatory for my attitude. This is not making the airways safer. It's retaliatory."
TSA: "Pretty much…yes."
...so we thoroughly reviewed the incident and have concluded that this passenger was screened in accordance with standard procedures
Thank you for admitting that retaliatory screenings are "standard procedure" for TSA personnel.
- September 18, 2012 at 1:58 PM
- RB said...
Anonymous said...
It amazes me how some people can be so ignorant. What the powers that be at TSA allow is not any fault of the officers working day in and day out to keep people safe. The methods we use to screen the public are also handed down to the officers by people who make substantially more money. With this being said the public with the chips on their shoulders who think they are making a statement by harrassing an overworked, yet underpaid officer are directing their attitudes at the wrong people. There are people from all walks of life with tremendous talent and skills who happen to work for TSA, including some veterans and former law enforcement. Before you put all of TSA into a huge group, remember everyone is an individual.
September 17, 2012 9:06 AM
If you take a TSA paycheck then you are just as wrong and guilty as the ones who make these policies.
Get an honest job.
- September 18, 2012 at 4:20 PM
- Wintermute said...
"It amazes me how some people can be so ignorant. What the powers that be at TSA allow is not any fault of the officers working day in and day out to keep people safe."
"Just following orders" does not excuse one for breaking the law. TSAgent actions violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. "Just following orders" will not save them.
- September 18, 2012 at 4:59 PM
- Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
Testing does not involve sticking ANYTHING into your drink.
To test something, you need a sample of it. How, pray tell, does the sample amount to be tested get on the testing strip?
- September 18, 2012 at 5:40 PM
- Anonymous said...
The incident not only casts aspersions on the behavior of TSA "officers" but shows the indefensible absurdity of a "random screening procedure" that renders legitimate liquids unfit for consumption.
Check your facts. Nothing is placed into or in any way comes in contact with the drink.
- September 18, 2012 at 6:32 PM
- Anonymous said...
Since nothing is stuck in the drink, as two TSA employees anonymously post above (during work hours??) then the test strips, which need to have liquid applied to them to do what they are made to do, are not being used properly. The strips CANNOT test anything without being dunked in a liquid, therefore our tax dollars are wasted by TSA falsely claiming they are testing anything.
Security theater at it's worse!
Also, TSA employees, especially ones posting comments ON THE JOB, should be required to identify themselves, since they appear to be posting in an official capacity, i.e. toeing the company line.
Oh, and Bob? Lame, uninformative post. You wasted time writing nothing.
- September 20, 2012 at 4:15 AM
- Anonymous said...
" There are people from all walks of life with tremendous talent and skills who happen to work for TSA"
No, there aren't.
- September 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM
- Anonymous said...
Oh, and Bob? Lame, uninformative post. You wasted time writing nothing.
You seem to be making the assumption that the purpose of the post was to provide an unbiased authoritative account of the incident, so that we might know the objective truth about what has been widely reported. Under that criterion, the post is indeed uninformative and quite possibly "lame."
But that's not the purpose of the post. As with all of Bob's responses to incidents that make the TSA look bad, the purpose is to dismiss or minimize the incident, to denigrate the passenger who reported it, and then to remind us that the TSA is always right.
These posts follow a standard template that Bob can probably fill out in his sleep:
First, state that TSA employees are highly competent, highly trained professionals who are held to the highest standards of conduct. When appropriate, mention that the reported conduct is prohibited by TSA procedures. That merely reinforces a fact that should be beyond dispute: The reported conduct could not possibly have happened.
Second, report the results of the TSA's "thorough investigation" of the incident. Mirabile dictu, such investigations always find that that the TSA employees acted properly!
Given such compelling proof, the only possible conclusion is that the incident was a passenger's fanciful fabrication. Alternatively, if the incident wasn't a lie, Bob will tell us exactly what ignorance, disobedience, insubordination, or other misbehavior the guilty passenger committed to make them fully responsible for the incident. Since the passenger clearly wasn't humbled when the TSO properly administered a corrective admonition, Bob needs to humble them in public. But the humbled passenger can then serve as an example, from which we can all learn how to avoid causing similar incidents.
Under these criteria, this wasn't Bob's best work. He does clearly communicate that TSA officers are beyond reproach, and that the passenger disobeyed an order. But he's too fuzzy about the details of what the passenger did wrong to either humble her properly or to make an example of her. That could be because the video linked in an earlier comment reflects the facts of the incident. If the officer really did admit to retaliation, he was acting improperly. Since that's impossible, perhaps obfuscation was the best way to resolve the conundrum. Regardless, Bob wasn't quite up to his usual standard of leading us step by step to the inevitable conclusion that the TSA is always right.
Not to worry. We can be completely confident that Bob will have many more opportunities to dismiss reports of TSA misconduct, and to humble the passengers who either fabricated or caused the incidents.
- September 20, 2012 at 1:44 PM
- TSORon said...
Wintermute said...
[["Just following orders" does not excuse one for breaking the law. TSAgent actions violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. "Just following orders" will not save them.]]
Not according to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: http://openjurist.org/482/f2d/893/united-states-v-davis
Not according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=%22administrative%20search%22&url=/supct/html/99-1030.ZO.html
Not according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: http://openjurist.org/482/f2d/893/united-states-v-davis
Not according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=airport&url=/supct/html/01-631.ZO.html
Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States: http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/520/520.US.305.96-126.html
- September 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM
- Wintermute said...
TSORon said...
"Not according to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: http://openjurist.org/482/f2d/893/united-states-v-davis"
First, do you not know how to make links work in Blogger? Pretty easy...
Second, I never said no administrative searches were allowed, as long they are looking for actual threats and are not overly invasive. Walk-through metal detectors and luggage xray meets this criteria. Nude-o-scopes and part-downs that would be sexual assault in any other context do not. Besides, part of the court's decision in this case was "there was no governmental involvement." Nice try, though...
"Not according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=%22administrative%20search%22&url=/supct/html/99-1030.ZO.html"
Another nice try, but police conducted open-view examination of the vehicles from the outside. This is not an unreasonable search. Had the police strip-searched each driver (which is what the node-o-scopes basically do), then I suspect the courts may have ruled differently.
"Not according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: http://openjurist.org/482/f2d/893/united-states-v-davis
Closest so far, but not a ruling on the nude-o-scopes, but this search was a result of a very specific set of circumstances. While I disagree with those circumstances, travelling with no ID should be allowed, this was not about that.
"Not according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=airport&url=/supct/html/01-631.ZO.html"
Both bus passengers gave consent to be searched, so not even close.
"Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States: http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/520/520.US.305.96-126.html"
" The prescription at issue, approved by the Georgia Legislature in 1990, orders that " [e]ach candidate seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a state office shall as a condition of such qualification be required to certify that such candidate has tested negative for illegal drugs.'" So, ummm... Not even remotely close.
Not try, though. While the government may present this case law as arguments in a court of law if they are sued over the virtual strip searches and overly-aggressive pat-downs, this has not occurred as of yet. Therefore it is unclear as to whether any of these cases will apply in that case. I contend that they will not, as presented above. Perhaps you'd like to expand your comments to state why you think each of these cases is relevant? Other than they cover very specific cases, limited in scope, which allowed searches without a warrant.
If I am correct in that the current searches (nude-o-scopes and overly-invasive pat-downs) violate the 4th amendment, then "just following orders" does not absolve those TSAgents who are "just doing their jobs" (paraphrased,) according to the comment I was replying to.
Nice try, though.
- September 21, 2012 at 9:35 AM
- Anonymous said...
"Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis checkpoint program is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly affirmed."
- September 21, 2012 at 6:30 PM
- Michael said...
Please note. The beverage test does not contaminate the drink. The test strip is held over the top of the liquid testing the vapors only. As for the rest of the interaction, kinder customer service skills would have been best - if the passenger gets too verbal and out of hand...a supervisor and legal officer get to handle the situation. This passenger's actions were not personal...grow up everyone!
- September 23, 2012 at 7:17 AM
- Anonymous said...
Michael said...
Please note. The beverage test does not contaminate the drink. The test strip is held over the top of the liquid testing the vapors only.
This is not a valid methodology. A slight breeze (from the AC vents, or a person walking by), and the test strip would never encounter any vapors from the container.
When the cops think you're DUI, they don't wave the Breathalyzer in the air where you exhale- they need to get an actual sample of your breath. To test a liquid properly, you need a sample of the liquid, not the air somewhere near the liquid.
And of course, the main point is that you don't need to test the liquids sold in the 'secure' area at all- after all, they were checked when they came into the 'secure' area... weren't they??
- September 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM
- Wintermute said...
Michael said...
"It is standard procedure for the TSO to inform the passenger carrying a prohibited item that they have several options, including mailing it to themselves. Always the option is available for them to not have to dispose of their property -- unless of course there is an arrest."
Sometimes, because of time constraints, the only real option (if the answer to "Do you want to fly today?" is "Yes") is to voluntarily surrender it. Besides that, we already know that standard procedure is not always followed.
- September 24, 2012 at 12:05 PM
- Anonymous said...
@ Michael (or should I say TSOMichael?)
Since you admit the strips never come in contact with the liquid (Coke or water purchased in the "sterile" area), then as Anonymous says, they won't work. Should be easy to read the directions on the box or on the MSDS and see how the strips must have liquid applied to them or possibly be sealed for a certain time in a bag with the "terror bottle" for the strips to react. Waving the "magic strip" over a Coke or water bottle won't do anything but waste test strips.
I suppose since our tax money has already been wasted on these useless strips, the TSA is trying to pretend to use them. So very, very pathetic.
I expect to see a couple of rabbits pulled out of a hat and maybe a couple of card tricks at the next "Terror Bottle Magic Test Strip Show."
- September 24, 2012 at 3:23 PM
- Anonymous said...
A test strip doesn't have to be DUNKED into your drink in order to obtain a sample. Ever heard of vapors?
- September 26, 2012 at 6:10 PM
- Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
A test strip doesn't have to be DUNKED into your drink in order to obtain a sample. Ever heard of vapors?
Ever heard of a breeze? Air Conditioning vents? It's trivial to see a scenario where a test strip that is waved near an open bottle (how far? 1 inch? Two inches?) would never even encounter any supposed vapors that the bottle might put out.
Again, when cops test you for DUI, they don't simply put the Breathalyzer near your mouth- they make you actually blow through it. Because they don't need a sample of air near your mouth- they need a sample of the air you are actually breathing. In the same way, a test strip can't just be waved in the air near a liquid- it needs to have an actual sample of the liquid.
- September 28, 2012 at 11:26 PM
- Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
"A test strip doesn't have to be DUNKED into your drink in order to obtain a sample. Ever heard of vapors?"
And that, fine citizens, is why our tax money is being wasted. TSA employees are not being trained on how to use their equipment and apparently are just taking the boss' word that "all you have to do is just wave the magic test strip near a bottle to test it."
Read the directions and stop wasting our time and money, TSAnonymous.
- October 1, 2012 at 10:58 PM
- fossil said...
If you don't want to obey the TSA completely, get the (expletive deleted) out of the airport!
Wonder how foolish you'd feel on the way down after an explosion.
TSA is there to protect crew and passengers! Live happily with it or don't fly!
- October 4, 2012 at 5:24 PM
- Wintermute said...
fossil said...
"If you don't want to obey the TSA completely, get the (expletive deleted) out of the airport!
Wonder how foolish you'd feel on the way down after an explosion.
TSA is there to protect crew and passengers! Live happily with it or don't fly!"
If you don't enjoy our freedoms, get the (expletive deleted) out of my country. Wonder how foolish you'd feel if you were transported back in time to WWII Germany or cold-war Soviet Russia? Live happily with your constitutionally-protected rights, or go somewhere that's less free than we're supposed to be!
- October 12, 2012 at 5:20 PM
- Anonymous said...
I've never had any bad experiences with the TSA. In every case they have acted respectfully and professionally. I'm not saying that incidences don't happen from time to time, but I think most of the stuff we read about is probably made up.
- November 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM
- Anonymous said...
I have half consumed the beverage purchased from the concessionair and the TSA wants to test for contaminants. My drink is ok, but what about any fine contaminants dropped from that little blue test strip they wave over my drink? Fine, test it. I will return my drink to the concessionair and request my money back.
- December 8, 2012 at 12:06 AM
- Anonymous said...
I canot see the article .Why ?
- March 27, 2014 at 3:38 PM
- Anonymous said...
Nice to read this article
sad hindi shayri
- November 7, 2014 at 7:30 PM
- Mrinal Roy said...
Interesting, although the passenger was very rude TSA acted generously. good work!
- August 26, 2015 at 12:57 PM


text:
The purpose of screening is early diagnosis and treatment. Screening tests are usually administered to people without current symptoms, but who may be at high risk for certain diseases or conditions.
There are no current screening tests or screening guidelines specific to IBS.
Revision Information
- Reviewer: Daus Mahnke, MD
- Review Date: 12/2015 -
- Update Date: 12/20/2014 -

subset: commoncrawl


text:
pooflady wrote:hole card
card holder
AZGman wrote:card holder
hold off
Volunteer Moderator
pooflady wrote:hold off
off track
dontwantaname wrote:off track
track down
pooflady wrote:track down
down south
dontwantaname wrote:down south
south pole
pooflady wrote:south pole
pole vault
pole vault
dontwantaname wrote:pole vault
vault over
pooflady wrote:vault over
over sleep
olcubmaster wrote:over sleep
sleep walk
dontwantaname wrote:sleep walk
walk around
pooflady wrote:walk around
around town
dontwantaname wrote:around town
town polish
pooflady wrote:town polish
polish rag
Isn't it weird .... polish is spelled the same as Polish.
No wonder I can't spell.
dontwantaname wrote:polish rag
Isn't it weird .... polish is spelled the same as Polish.
No wonder I can't spell.
rag bag
KtCallista wrote:rag bag
bag man
olcubmaster wrote:bag man
man Friday
pooflady wrote:man Friday
Friday Nights
KtCallista wrote:Friday Nights
Night game
dontwantaname wrote:Night game
game board
KtCallista wrote:game board
board meeting
dontwantaname wrote:board meeting
meeting minutes
pooflady wrote:meeting minutes
minute waltz
dontwantaname wrote:minute waltz
waltzing Matilda
KtCallista wrote:waltzing Matilda
Matilda Awards
GodfatherND wrote:Matilda Awards
awards ceremony
pooflady wrote:awards ceremony
ceremonial robes
AZGman wrote:ceremonial robes
Robe hook
olcubmaster wrote:Robe hook
hook shot
pooflady wrote:hook shot
shot glass
olcubmaster wrote:shot glass
glass eye
stacipurv wrote:glass eye
eye chart
olcubmaster wrote:eye chart
chart drawer
AZGman wrote:chart drawer
drawer knob
pooflady wrote:drawer knob
Knob Creek
AZGman wrote:Knob Creek
Creek Indians
pooflady wrote:Creek Indians
Indian reservation
dontwantaname wrote:Indian reservation
reservation policy
pooflady wrote:reservation policy
policy declaration
View All →


text:
James Island, SC, USA < change city >
Bands (48)
Caterers (35)
Florists (32)
Coordinators (30)
Wedding Day Beauty (30)
Cakes (27)
DJs (14)
Decorations (14)
Officiants (14)
Videographers (12)
Limos (11)
Wedding Fashion (11)
Rentals (9)
Ceremony Musicians (8)
Invitations (6)
Ceremony Sites (237)
Reception Sites (167)
See All Vendors >
Charleston Black Cab Com...
Charleston, South Carolina, United States
2 ratings, 2 reviews, 2 weddings
This cab was really fun and very reasonably priced. The people were easy to work ...
Absolutely Charleston
3427 West Montague Avenue
North Charleston, SC, USA
3 ratings, 2 reviews, 4 weddings
The only reason they get 3 stars instead of 4 is because the brakes on the trolle...
Lowcountry Valet And Shu...
Charleston , SC, US
2 ratings, 1 review, 2 weddings
Amazing service!! Jeffrey was wonderful to work with and would recommend Lowcount...
Olde Towne Carriage
20 Anson Street
Charleston,, United States
Attractions/Entertainment, ...
1 rating, 1 review, 4 weddings
We had a 16-passenger carriage transport the wedding party from the church to the...
Golf Carts Of Charleston
430 Savannah Hwy
Charleston, SC, United States
1 rating, 1 review, 1 wedding
On time-easy to work with-the 8 person cart was perfect for our beach wedding and...
Charleston Carraige Company
Charleston, SC, USA
1 rating, 1 review, 1 wedding
Carraige was right on time. Took us on a private tour after the wedding and back ...
Lee's Limousine
1275 Remount Road
North Charleston, SC, United States
1 rating, 1 review, 1 wedding
Angelo was our driver and was patient and very professional. The girls weren't re...
Charleston Black Cab Com...
3111 Meeting Street Road
Charleston, SC, United States
1 rating, 1 review, 1 wedding
Great cab company. they are professional and polite, yet lots of fun! We used the...
A Charleston Wedding
Folly Beach, SC, USA
Ceremony & Reception, Limos...
2 ratings, 1 review, 2 weddings
This DJ was the best. He entertained the young children at the ceremony and did a...
Charleston Black Cab
7281 Cross County Road
North Charleston, SC, United States
1 rating, 0 reviews, 1 wedding


text:
Pick and Click one of the menu tabs above for more artist info.
Or click the artist name tag above to go to the artist page.
All artist info on these pages is
Facebook: Like & Comments -
Share on/Post to
Category: Rock & Alternative
Views: 4005
Problems with this Video? Report This Video!
Terms Of Service - Privacy Policy - Cookies Policy
Looks like myspace videos have stopped working again, even on their own site. I contacted their support and reported the problem. I'll wait until I hear back from them. I'd hate to delete all those good videos so I'd rather wait a while longer. Thanks for your patience and understanding.
The reply from myspace is in
Unfortunately, our tech team is only focusing on songs/videos uploaded within the last 3 years. There is no time frame of when media uploaded over 3 years ago will be fixed. I am sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.
Livestreaming this week:
ROSKILDE 2017 (28 Jun - 02 Jul)
Updated link (ignore the error page it'll go away, Red Bull is screwing up obviously) ... streaming now
© 2003-2017 Totally Fuzzy. All rights reserved.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt.
He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.(Albert Einstein)


text:
- Don't take a chance, make your reservations with Expedia for the lowest rates
- Save more money for the slots with our hot deals
- Check out our consumer reviews to help you choose the ideal casino hotel
An unforgettable vacation is in the cards for you when you make reservations today. Channel your inner Lady Luck and book a stay at a hotel near a casino in Jesolo.
Once you've made your choice on your accommodation, think about how fun it will be to mosey over to the casinos, practice your poker face, and responsibly take a chance on the roulette tables. You'll feel like you're holding all the aces when you stay at a hotel within easy access to the best casinos in Jesolo. Go ahead--spend an afternoon responsibly testing your luck at the slot machines in the gaming rooms, and then chow down at the buffets and marvel at the enchanting live shows during the evening.
Everyone's a winner when you book Jesolo casino hotels here on Expedia. Offering cheap deals on accommodations is our strong suit, as we provide you with the lowest rates on accommodations. You'll feel like you hit the big time when you see our customizable options and major discounts on casino hotels. We strive to accommodate all your personalized needs and even offer mobile options to make it easy to book. Experience our impressive range of choices to ensure you find a hotel meeting all your preferences, from location to price.


text:
713-213-4286 email@example.com
If Lee Vigil, the new director of student evangelization with Campus Ministry, seems like a familiar face, that is because he is. As a member of the Fellowship of Catholic University Students he served as an on campus missionary for four years before joining St. Thomas as a full-time staff member.
Vigil is looking to implement a number of programs to garner student involvement and inspire students to grow in their spirituality. The implementation of a Campus Ministry social committee and regular "Theology at the Lab" events, hosted at the Black Lab, as well as by supporting existing programs are among priorities.
"I look forward to seeing the students come alive in faith and observe them develop an insatiable desire to share their faith with their peers," Vigil said.
Campus Ministry will host an open house every weeknight of Welcome Week, Aug. 26 – 30, where students will be served free dinner and encouraged to explore the recently renovated Campus Ministry house, 4110 Mt. Vernon.
Educating Leaders of Faith and Character
Copyright © 2017 University of St. Thomas. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Clery Act | Title IX | Consumer Information
Please select one of the options below: Apply Now, Schedule Visit, or Request Info.


text:
by WatchDox
May 31, 2013
According to Forrester surveys, 91% of US consumers have at least one connected device. Business users are putting increased demands on internal IT to deliver mobile-enabled functions for anytime, anywhere, any-device access to information. How can enterprises prepare for the future of mobility with the requisite controls and security?
Download this "Forrester Report" and discover:
Major business and IT trends that will affect the development of a future-proof mobile support strategy
The "stateless" architecture where IT decouples security controls from the devices and the infrastructure
The changes needed in IT operations and expectations to support this new architecture
The four steps that IT professionals must follow to build a stateless architecture


text:
Scotts® Broadcast / Rotary Spreader - (Turf Builder® Edgeguard Mini, Basic, Standard, Deluxe Edgeguard, Edgeguard DLX, Lawn Pro & Speedy Green) - Set to 11 ½ for Reseeding Scotts® Drop Spreaders - (AccuGreen, Classic Drop) - Set to 18 for Reseeding and Go Over Twice Scotts® Hand-Held Spreaders - Set to 5 for Reseeding and Go Over Twice Scotts® Wizz™ - Set to 4.25 New grass and Reseeding, go over twice
Other Spreaders | Click Here
Rake area to loosen the top layer of soil and remove dead grass. For best results, add a thin layer of Scotts® Turf Builder® LawnSoil before applying seed.
Apply using a Scotts® spreader. Lightly rake the seed into the soil. For best results, apply Scotts® Turf Builder® Starter® Food for New Grass when seeding to help new grass grow in quicker and thicker.
Watering is a critical step to seeding success. Water daily or as needed to keep the soil surface moist until the seedlings reach at least 2 inches tall.
Seed will begin to grow in 10 - 28 days. You can mow the seedlings when they reach 2 inches in height. Do not apply a weed control product until after at least four mowings.
Spring and early summer are the best times to plant, because seed germinates best anytime temperatures are between 70°F and 90°F and all danger of frost has passed.
10 - 28
5 lb: up to 2,000 sq ft
This is not the product label. Always read and follow the product label before use.
View Label (requires PDF reader)
Safety Data Sheets can be found at scottsmsds.com
Need an answer to a product question? Scotts experts are always available by email and phone in our Help Center.


text:
Ainda não é um membro?
Cadastre-se agora
para descobrir a nova e premiada Englishtown 10.
0800 600 5858
There is a song in English with the line, 'Don't go changing…'. In fact, there are many songs in English asking the person not to change. And I get it. It's all very admirable. If you say these things to your partner what you are saying is that you love them just the way they are.
However, can we really suggest they never change? Isn't change inevitable? If we are never changing, then surely we are stagnating? After all, we can always improve who we are. Ok maybe I'm overanalysing but it did make me think that we need to be understanding and flexible in our relationships. We should encourage positive change and make room for it in our relationships. If we accept that both of us will change over the course of the relationship (perhaps only in small, subtle ways), we are more likely to grow with the relationship. Assuming, of course, that the change is good for the person you care about.
I guess my point is that, getting into a relationship with someone and then getting upset or being disappointed because over time they have changed, is unrealistic. Stay close to your partner. Stay connected. Change together.
Stagnating: staying the same for so long that you begin to decline/not improve or make progress
Subtle: small, almost unnoticeable
wrote... em 01/12/2013 12:22:40
I think trying to change our partner will lead to negative outcomes. We should start to change by ourself. When we try to change another person, he or she will resictant to any change.
Alexander Zapryagaev
wrote... em 20/06/2016 12:38:43
Alexander Zapryagaev
wrote... em 20/06/2016 12:38:44
As men and women's roles change in society, marriage is changing too. Men and women are getting married later and it is perfectly normal, acceptable and even often expected that a couple will get married (for the first time) in their thirties. To me this is a good sign. I feel that for too long, people have been getting married for all the wrong reasons. One of those wrong reasons is that the need to conform to societal expectations – the need to not be 'left on the shelf'. Getting married in your thirties used to mean that you were at risk of being looked down on and pitied and people would sometimes therefore take whoever came along to avoid this.
But as it becomes more and more acceptable to have children even in your forties, and the societal mind shift that marriage is not necessarily the ultimate goal of anyone over 18, the urgency to get married early weakens. We are now allowed more time to think, to decide, to find the right person and not settle for Mr or Miss 'good enough' and since that can only end in an unhappy marriage in years to come, to me the time and space to make a good decision is welcome.
To be left on the shelf: to not get married because no one wants you
Look down on: disrespect/think that someone is not as good as you
To pity: to feel sorry for in a negative way
wrote... em 29/11/2013 00:47:34
But this also leading to less birth rate and more sexual activities in teens. Un wellcomed child birth and under aged moms are also abecoming a big problem.
I think a man should marry at most 25 of age, it is the average age when you can also enjoy life and you find very little time to stray along your sexual natural desires. Man and girl have enough power to control their intentions at this age before going wrong.
wrote... em 19/01/2014 10:40:34
I think marriage in any age have its advantages as well as its disadvantages.
Alexander Zapryagaev
wrote... em 20/06/2016 12:38:46
Would you be ok with a friend of yours dating your ex? I did an informal survey on this and it turns out the results are a bit split. Interestingly, it seems that woman would be more against this than men. That got me thinking: would I be ok with it?
I guess it depends on a couple of things. Firstly, do I have still have feelings for this person? The relationship must have ended long enough ago that both of us have moved on. A lot. Also, did the relationship end particularly badly? Are we still on good terms? If my friend wants to date my ex, that means I'll be seeing him more often. Can I handle that? Of course the average break up is never a fun, friendly affair, but now, a long time later, are we able to move past any hurt? Is it now obvious to us that the relationship wasn't meant to be?
I think it would be extremely important, if you want to date your friend's ex, to get permission from them first. Going behind their backs would amount to betrayal and possibly lead to all sorts of difficult situations. I know that exes are not our possessions, but having them back in our lives can make things awkward and hurtful if not done right.
Ultimately: be honest. Be sensitive. Be realistic.
It turns out: to happen in a particular way – often a way that you didn't expect
To be on good terms: to have a good relationship with someone/to not have any bad feelings towards someone
Awkward: emotionally uncomfortable
wrote... em 25/11/2013 10:53:25
The word " ex " tells me that person "does not exist anymore", that is, I don't care about anymore, even if " relationship end particularly badly ". If you " are still on good terms ", then you are friends and not anymore lovers, as I see things. Nobody has to get permission to do such a thing. Your ex is not your boyfriend or fiancée anymore. They are free to do as they desire. You couldn't stop it even if he was still your fiancée. People fall in love every day, it may happen. If they are happy together you should be happy for your friend then. If you can't stand seeing them together then you should tell that your friend, she will understand. Or, don't meet anymore your friend. If you really hate seeing them together, then, maybe you still care a bout him. Then, that is a different thing.
As you said " exes are not our possessions ". Not only, not even our lovers are our possession. We must accept that is all over. And, it could happen to meet him again in a different way, different situation. It could have been a neighbour, a collegue. It hurts only because we are talking about our friend maybe.
" I'll be seeing him more often. Can I handle that? " - It depends on you only.
wrote... em 25/11/2013 13:18:23
I think we must finish a relationship before we start anther one!
wrote... em 25/11/2013 13:18:40
I think we must finish a relationship before we start anther one!
wrote... em 25/11/2013 13:19:02
I think we must finish a relationship before we start anther one!
wrote... em 26/11/2013 10:59:52
Have we decided that is over? Have we accepted it?
Alexander Zapryagaev
wrote... em 20/06/2016 12:38:47
There is a quote in English that goes: 'Absence lessens half-hearted passions and increases greater ones. As the wind blows out a candle, yet stirs up the fire.' So then if we don't really love someone who is far away, we forget them quickly and if we are away from our true love for a long time, we only love them more, right? Well, sort of right. I agree that if you really love someone, you miss them more each day. But let's also be honest. A long distance relationship for too long does not work. If you are trying to maintain a relationship indefinitely, from far away, at some point, that person stops being a part of your everyday life. Once that happens, it's easy to drift apart. It's not a failing on either side, simple a natural human response.
Eventually, you will realize your needs aren't being met and start to wonder what the difference is between your relationship and a pen-friend. I'm not suggesting that all long distance relationships are doomed to fail but I am suggesting that if you want to try and make a long distance relationship work, you need to approach it realistically and pragmatically. Then you may have a fighting chance.
Indefinitely: without end
Drift apart: to feel less and less emotionally close to a person
Doomed to fail: destined to fail/definitely not going to work
Pragmatically: practically/rationally/sensibly/logically
wrote... em 19/01/2014 10:44:42
That is true!
Dila Pramesti
wrote... em 27/02/2014 20:40:32
Maybe right maybe wrong. That's depend on the way we see it. Everybody has their own perspective. In one side I do agree agree with you that a long distance relationship for too long does not work and eventually only leaves a pain in our heart, wasting time to think someone who is just an imagination, waiting without ending, feel worried and get broken heart. It's so bad... But in one side I'm not agree, for the true love will always keep fighting, to prove something impossible to be possible. Make the distance to be near. Keep believing that there is always a happy ending..Eventually LOVE shows its power....
Does anyone write love letters anymore? I'm guessing there aren't many of the pen and paper kind around but maybe love letters have taken on new media. Of course, I guess it depends on how you define a love letter. Is an sms proclaiming your love for someone considered a love letter? Or is that just creepy? How about an email? Or a voice note? Maybe even a PowerPoint Presentation?
Surely someone, somewhere is still sending love letters in whatever form? Or is it a dying art? If so, isn't it time we resurrected it? Admittedly they can be a little weird if unwelcome but done the right way and from the right person, love letters can be amazing affirmation of a relationship. Even and especially in a long-term relationship.
I must say, I am obviously a little old school, but there is something about a piece of paper that you can keep tucked away in a book or in your pocket that just feels so much more real. It's tactile and personal. But then maybe I just need to join the 21st century.
Proclaiming: announcing or stating publicly
Creepy: something a little scary and weird
Dying art: a practice/convention that fewer and fewer people are using
Resurrect: rebuild/bring back to life
Tactile: you can touch it
wrote... em 30/09/2013 08:35:54
Good discussion Megan!
wrote... em 16/11/2013 12:59:25
" Does anyone write love letters anymore? "
I do, sometimes..
Alexander Zapryagaev
wrote... em 20/06/2016 12:38:50
Couples who laugh together, stay together.
They say laughter is the best medicine and it is certainly valuable in any long term relationship. Done the right way in a relationship, laughter can:
« help form a bond between you and your partner because you are sharing something (like a joke);
« (if done sensitively) help you deal with differences in your relationship
« put things into perspective – it can help you see problems in a different way
« help you through tough times
« and most importantly for me, diffuse tension – when things could suddenly get out of hand, a well-timed joke can stop it from happening.
Obviously, we need to be aware that we are not laughing at our partner or using humour to cover up what's really going on. Honesty is still essential.
But laughter can add so much to your relationship. Time to crack a joke and get laughing!
Diffuse: make weaker
out of hand: not under control
crack a joke: make a joke
ceci rodriguez
wrote... em 14/10/2013 13:01:23
I am completely a gree with u, try to be always positive a smile fixes all kind of feeling !!
ceci rodriguez
wrote... em 14/10/2013 13:01:24
I am completely a gree with u, try to be always positive a smile fixes all kind of feeling !!
ceci rodriguez
wrote... em 14/10/2013 13:05:07
I am completely a gree with u, try to be always positive a smile fixes all kind of feeling !!
wrote... em 19/01/2014 10:45:57
Alexander Zapryagaev
wrote... em 20/06/2016 12:38:51
There is a famous prose poem called 'Desiderata' by Max Ehrmann which is full of wise advice and includes the line, 'If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter'. I think this is especially true in relationships. It is so easy to compare what we have and how our relationships work with those of the people around us. But here's the thing: we are different people. Comparing your relationship to that of another couple – no matter how similar you think you are – is really comparing apples with pears. Just not the same. Expecting to be able to create something similar with 2 people who are different is just setting you up for failure.
I think the answer is to think about your relationship from your own perspective. Stop worrying about everyone else and ask yourself, 'Am I happy?' If so, why change anything? If not, doing it someone else's way will not make you happy. In that case, ask yourself, 'what would make me happy?'
Anyway, for all you know, those people you are trying to imitate may very well be trying to imitate you. Don't become vain and bitter. Just be you.
And while you're at it, read the full poem at: http://mwkworks.com/desiderata.html
Prose poem: a longer poem
Vain: (negative) think you are beautiful/better than others
Bitter: angry and resentful
wrote... em 19/01/2014 10:49:34
It is according to scientific eidence too.
Dila Pramesti
wrote... em 27/02/2014 21:44:47
Hey...I'm new member here ..Talking about love is always interesting. I like making love letter and quotes. But I dunno know how to post here. I'm still learning how to use this page. The only one I do here just give comment to some posting here... hopefully I can post my love letter and my quotes soon...Have a great day for you....
Dila Pramesti
wrote... em 27/02/2014 21:44:48
Hey...I'm new member here ..Talking about love is always interesting. I like making love letter and quotes. But I dunno know how to post here. I'm still learning how to use this page. The only one I do here just give comment to some posting here... hopefully I can post my love letter and my quotes soon...Have a great day for you....
Alexander Zapryagaev
wrote... em 20/06/2016 12:38:52
We are all so grateful when we find someone who can put up with our moods and crazy idiosyncrasies. I know I can be especially moody sometimes. My partner has learned to deal with this (ok, it doesn't always come naturally – sometimes it takes work) and now knows that when I get like that, he must just let me be. At first he took it personally, and now he handles it like a pro.
So I have this thought. Maybe, when we meet someone who doesn't 'get' us, it doesn't mean that it's a deal breaker. Maybe they just need a little time to learn about us. In the same way, it has taken me years to be ok with the fact that my partner goes quiet when something at work is stressing him out. It's not me. And in fact asking if it is me, aggravates the problem until it actually does become me. I am glad we both put in the time and effort. And in a weird way I have enjoyed the challenge.
My point? If you really see potential in a relationship but have some issues, don't necessarily give up. Two people can find a way to work together and enjoy it.
Idiosyncrasies: The (often strange) little things that make us who we are.
Pro: Abbreviation of professional
Deal breaker: Something that means that you want to end the relationship/something that you will never put up with
Aggravates: makes worse
wrote... em 25/09/2013 12:40:04
That is true, Megan!
Alexander Zapryagaev
wrote... em 20/06/2016 12:38:54
When two people are in a relationship, it's important to remember that TWO people are in the relationship. And two people cannot be expected to always have the same views and opinions of one person. So inevitably, friction, conflict and disagreements will occur. In fact if they don't occur, then something is wrong with the relationship.
But how these issues are handled is vital and can determine the long-term success of the relationship. In a fight, try to stay in control of yourself. Avoid immature and abusive behaviour. You have a right to your feelings and a right to express them, but you need to give those feelings a voice in a constructive and not destructive way.
Always be aware of your intentions in an argument. Are you trying to be vindictive or do you really want to resolve an issue? If you need to win, then your relationship becomes a competition and your partner will have to lose in order for you to win. But this is not a competition. It's a relationship – it's a team effort.
Inevitably: it will certainly happen
Friction: when 2 things rub together and cause static electricity (when people disagree and get angry with each other)
Vindictive: wishing to hurt the other person
wrote... em 31/07/2013 13:47:57
Harun sulaiman
wrote... em 06/08/2013 12:21:02
Absolutely true, bless you
waves hope
wrote... em 21/08/2013 13:03:55
u re right dear
fire fox
wrote... em 06/09/2013 18:38:28
When a relationship has come to an end, possibly because of a new love, there is often a desire for revenge. Have you ever taken revenge on someone? Or have you been a victim of revenge? How did you feel afterwards? Is it allowed? What do you think?
fire fox
wrote... em 06/09/2013 18:40:49
An interesting result of a survey: "Men are quicker to declare their love to their partner than women." - What are your experiences? Do you think this is true?
fire fox
wrote... em 06/09/2013 18:40:55
An interesting result of a survey: "Men are quicker to declare their love to their partner than women." - What are your experiences? Do you think this is true?
wrote... em 27/09/2013 23:18:32
in every relation there a side) which is you have to be as sweet victim for your woman as lover, because every woman love to see her man like an lion to deal with others in the life , but when he be sit between her hand he has to be like a rabbit or teddy ....that is the real love as i read and i know from my experiences )
enjoy it )
wrote... em 27/09/2013 23:18:55
in every relation there a side) which is you have to be as sweet victim for your woman as lover, because every woman love to see her man like an lion to deal with others in the life , but when he be sit between her hand he has to be like a rabbit or teddy ....that is the real love as i read and i know from my experiences )
enjoy it )
So you've been with your partner for long enough for all those fabulous feel-good chemicals to have worn off and now you love your partner but that mad desire has dwindled. First of all, it's normal. Second of all, it's important – we'd never get anything done if we were constantly wandering around filled with giddy romance. I sort of have this theory that those chemicals last as long as it takes for you to actually fall in love so that the love is there to pick up where the chemicals left off.
Anyway, however you look at it, the relationship changes over time. It can be good or bad depending on the relationship, the people involved and their intentions, desires and commitment. But even if it's good, it still takes some adjusting to. Suddenly that cute thing he used to do is no longer obscured by your romance glasses. Suddenly it's annoying.
Suddenly you're not saying so many 'me too!'s and differences are more exposed. But those differences can be amazing. They should be embraced. Not only do they add interest to the relationship, they help the other person to grow and develop. You have a choice here: get annoyed by the differences and move on, or embrace them and learn more about yourself and how you work in a relationship.
So much of the future of a relationship is up to you. Go on, enjoy the change!
Wear off: to become less and less over time
Dwindle: to slowly become less and less
Giddy: dizzy/light-headed
Adjust: make changes to fit something better
Obscure: to hide something/make it difficult to see something
wrote... em 30/07/2013 15:01:09
Suddenly you are not saying so many 'me too's....Very interesting Megan!
Alexander Zapryagaev
wrote... em 20/06/2016 12:38:56
After years of relationship experience I've realised one of the simplest ways of increasing harmony between the two people involved. I'm not saying I'm always very good at it and I'm not saying it's always easy. But it is a simple concept.
Just be kind.
Something happens in a relationship where two people are involved long-term. We get comfortable (good), we get honest (good), we get mean (not good). As we relax and feel comfortable with our partner, we can forget that they are on our side and start to take out our frustrations on them. In a way it's a kind of backhanded compliment: after all, you have to trust someone to be that 'yourself' with them.
But maybe it's time to reflect. Would you treat your friends the same way? So why treat one of the people you love the most in the whole world without kindness and its consequential cousin, respect? And then expect them to be kind back? In the end, as the golden rule dictates: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'
So, I repeat: just be kind.
A backhanded compliment: a compliment that seems to be a compliment but is also negative
wrote... em 28/07/2013 14:35:14
I agree with you Megan!
Megan C
wrote... em 30/07/2013 06:08:04
Alexander Zapryagaev
wrote... em 20/06/2016 12:38:58
First dates are an exciting and nerve-racking part of being in the dating world. Planning a first date can be a lot of pressure. If it has fallen to you to plan the first date, here are some ideas to help inspire you. Remember to think about the person you are going with and what they might like. Allow time for conversation but with a minor distraction to give you something to talk about and take all the focus off the pressure of maintaining that conversation.
Or go to a music show, art gallery, the driving range or the aquarium.
So in a nutshell, something you think they would enjoy/are interested in which will give you a chance to get to know each other without the pressure of the focus being completely on your (hopefully) blossoming romance. Have fun!
wrote... em 19/01/2014 10:36:43
Useful advises :))
The funny thing about our partner's habits is that they seem so endearing in the beginning. It's those little things that he/she does that makes them who they are and makes you love them. Then somewhere along the line – maybe just as a consequence of time, maybe a consequence of the initial excitement of the relationship wearing off – those exact habits become the very things that annoy you; the very things that cause arguments.
So how do we handle these? I guess there are at least three things to think about here: first, just remembering how much you used to love those little quirks can help ease your distress and annoyance. Second, relationships are all about communication: nice, diplomatic, kind communication. If something annoys you that much, isn't it worth asking your partner to stop or do something different? Assuming it's possible and/or reasonable? Very often, people don't realise something they do is annoying and can mitigate it to an extent if asked. And thirdly, never ever forget that you too have habits and quirks that might annoy your partner. Nobody is perfect. And we wouldn't want anyone to be perfect either.
Endearing: something that makes someone like/love you
Wear off: become less and less over time
Quirks: strange/funny little habits
Ease: to make easier/less stressful or uncomfortable
Mitigate: make less
kareem albayati
wrote... em 25/07/2013 08:50:49
very nice
wrote... em 26/07/2013 12:26:20
Yes Megan! I think every one should Identify his/her shorcomings or bad habits. If he/she can change them so he/she should do that. If not she/he should accept them. It is just true about his/her partner too.
We have to accept that our partner has some bad habits that are not easy to change!
wrote... em 27/07/2013 02:12:10
Very nice, I think nobody's perfect. just we should try as you said...
"People are good or half good or a quarter good, and it changes all the time- but even on the best day nobody's perfect."
- Colum McCann, Let the Great World Spin
At a conference of sociologists in America in 1977, love was defined as "the cognitive-affective state characterized by intrusive and obsessive fantasizing concerning reciprocity of amorant feelings by the object of the amorance."
The only thing I get from that is that I don't understand it. Just like I don't fully understand love. And why should I? I know for centuries, people have been trying to define love, but why? How will having a definition enhance our experience of it? In fact, it might do the opposite. Do we need to be able to define, categorise or otherwise label and classify it? Isn't the appeal of love, the mystery of it? And the personal experience of it? How you experience love may be very different to how I experience it but we can agree that it is a great experience – and we may be able to compare stories. But would you be able to tell me exactly what it is? Me neither. And that's ok. It's a common understanding that connects us as humans. Trying to put it in a box removes the aesthetic and injects and anaesthetic
It's just love. And when I use that word, you know what I mean. That's enough.
The appeal of: the nice parts of something that attract you to it
Aesthetic: artistic/emotional sense of something
Anaesthetic: a drug used to make you unconscious for an operation
wrote... em 15/07/2013 09:46:53
love is a complex thing. All of us have our own understanding of love. I think love is something make people strong when in bad situation.
Rose flower
wrote... em 25/07/2013 03:35:21
love is something that we can't touch or see as an object ; it's feeling which could feel deep inside us towards someone by whom our feelings got caputred by what is called THE APPEALING OF LOVE,,,,,,Love could be remarkable experience or painful one and the two sides have only descion what to be regardless the circumstances they are going through,,,,,the strength of love can defeat any obstacle around,,,,,,,
If you've been in a relationship for a long time, you may find that you have fallen into a routine. Perhaps things have become a bit boring. Time for a little makeover. Now don't panic. I'm not suggesting you go to great,exhausting lengths to overhaul your relationship. It doesn't necessarily require much more than a few tweaks – a couple of things to make your partner feel loved, cared for and thought about.
Try leaving your partner a little love note after you've left for work, or surprise them with a date. Perhaps organise an evening in – movies, popcorn, cuddles. Do one of your partner's chores without being asked. Think about what your partner likes and go from there.
The important thing is to make them feel appreciated. It is so well worth the effort because as they say in the classics, what you sow, you shall reap.
Overhaul: to improve something dramatically
Tweaks: make small changes to something
Cuddles: be physically affectionate/hold and hug someone for a longer time
What you sow, you shall reap: what you do today will affect tomorrow
wrote... em 03/06/2013 15:14:32
As always, your comment is useful and interesting. Thanks, Megan!
wrote... em 07/06/2013 09:38:22
Hey, I have just read your words and I am so pleasent to feel what you have been through! Thank you for sharing, I am a freshman here, by the way, nice meeting you~
wrote... em 07/06/2013 09:38:44
Hey, I have just read your words and I am so pleasent to feel what you have been through! Thank you for sharing, I am a freshman here, by the way, nice meeting you~
wrote... em 07/06/2013 09:38:45
Hey, I have just read your words and I am so pleasent to feel what you have been through! Thank you for sharing, I am a freshman here, by the way, nice meeting you~
wrote... em 27/06/2013 03:55:44
nice, yes, our life should be more romatic and more enthusiastic. wish all of us have a good life.
wrote... em 27/06/2013 03:55:50
nice, yes, our life should be more romatic and more enthusiastic. wish all of us have a good life.
wrote... em 27/06/2013 03:56:01
nice, yes, our life should be more romatic and more enthusiastic. wish all of us have a good life.
wrote... em 27/06/2013 03:56:03
nice, yes, our life should be more romatic and more enthusiastic. wish all of us have a good life.
wrote... em 27/06/2013 03:56:04
nice, yes, our life should be more romatic and more enthusiastic. wish all of us have a good life.
wrote... em 28/06/2013 22:31:31
Really nice and interesting writing.
Rose flower
wrote... em 25/07/2013 03:43:12
it's great to such great romantic life but don't forget who you are just to please whom u love by doing what they like to forget who u r and the character u have,,,,,love ,have romantic life and be yourself !
Just for fun – and a break from some of the heavier topics of relationships, here are a few ideas of gifts for your loved one. They are cheap, thoughtful and fun and you don't need to wait for a special occasion to treat your partner. You can let them know they are loved anytime!
Gift basket:
Think of 5 things that you think represent your relationship or 5 things that have special meaning to you and/or your partner or relate to memories you share. Put them in a basket with little clues/quotes/love letters explaining each. The cost of this gift is up to you. The items could be his/her favourite chocolate, a back massage, etc.
Either breakfast in bed – it's a classic! Or take your partner out to a beautiful location for breakfast – even if you have to travel a bit. Breakfasts are usually the cheapest meal to eat out and you can keep the cost down by choosing your restaurant carefully. Alternatively, pack a picnic breakfast and drive somewhere romantic to watch the sunrise.
Pamper day
Treat your partner to a day of pampering. You can pay professionals to do this, or do it yourself for free. Some ideas: start with a good coffee and muffin somewhere quaint, give them a massage, buy them a new item of clothing, later at home, run the, a bubble bath, hand them some fluffy, clean pjs, make a big bowl of popcorn and watch his/her favourite movie. Just feeling like you are being given lots of attention can make your partner feel loved.
Feel free to add more ideas!
Quaint: cute and pretty
wrote... em 01/06/2013 20:55:01
I once loved a girl ,but now ,she has married, At that time ,I did a lot of things in order to let her happy, but at last she alao left me.
We all have our characteristics that we find sexy about others. Some people like smiles, hands, eyes; some like a sense of humour or sensitivity. For me, one of the sexiest attributes a man can have is something quite simple. But interestingly not easy to achieve: confidence. I don't say it's not easy to achieve because it's difficult to be confident; I say it's not easy to achieve because it's difficult to get the degree of confidence right.
Now it is important here to differentiate between confidence and something far less sexy: arrogance. There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. They are in fact two attributes on a continuum. Arrogance implies that you think you are better than me. That's a turn off. I don't want to date someone who feels they are lowering themselves to my level. Confidence is being self-assured. You don't think you are better than others but you know you are good. You are good at being you. It makes me want to know you too. Confident people give off the air of security that makes them seem sure of themselves without your approval. That is sexy.
Attributes: characteristics
Continuum: a range/scale or variety
Turn off: something you don't find sexy
wrote... em 30/05/2013 12:17:34
" There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance" . Very good explanation. thank you
Following on from my recent blog post, I thought I'd extend this idea of knowing your self. Not only will getting to know yourself help you in finding and maintaining a happy relationship, it will also prevent you from being lost in the relationship. I've seen this happen to too many good people.
If you are not clear about who you are and what you need from a relationship, it's easier to take on the values and ambitions of your partner. This is fine in the short term because you probably feel that it contributes to the smooth running of the partnership but eventually, if it does not genuinely resonate with you, it will catch up with you.
And when it catches up with you, you will start to resent the relationship and by then it will be difficult to change because you will both be so set in your patterns of behaviour.
The take home message? Be true to yourself in order to be true to your partner.
Resonate: make sense to you
Resent: feel angry and bitter about
wrote... em 29/05/2013 13:34:12
Fully true, Megan!
Many thanks for your discussion.
Ok, so you broke up with someone – or they broke up with you and now (after some recovery) you are either happily single or in a new relationship. Then one day you find that your ex has sent you a friendship request on facebook or other social media. Do you accept?
I don't think that befriending your ex on facebook is necessarily a no-no. However, it is essential that you establish the intentions first. What are your intentions and what are your exes intentions? Are you over him/her? Are they over you? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then befriending them is too high risk. Just don't go there.
Something else to consider is how your current partner (if you have one) feels about it. You need to respect how they feel to a reasonable extent. If it upsets them, don't do it. Your ex is probably not someone that will really add that much value to your life anyway. They had their chance.
To a reasonable extent: to a fair degree
Andre Galdencio
wrote... em 12/06/2013 13:00:01
Good evening, my name is Andre and I would ask for your help, I work with internet marketing and do not have many resources to email marketing, then I would like you to divulge my website or send me the contacts of your e emails, thank you and await your response.
My skype: andre.galdencio
My email firstname.lastname@example.com
It's good to get to know yourself. No, wait, it's essential to get to know yourself. This needs to happen before you settle down with someone. Of course part of the process of getting to know yourself is dating. You learn a lot about yourself dating the 'right' people and the 'wrong' people and seeing yourself reflected in someone else.
But until you are clear about what you need from a relationship, entering into a long term one is risky. Yes, you will continue learning about the details when you are in that long-term relationship, but those deal-breakers and absolutes needs to be clear to you before you venture down that road.
For example, it will not help your relationship to discover two years into your marriage that it's very important to you that someone reminds you of the reasons they love you often. If that is something you need from a relationship and you are not getting it from your partner, eventually that will cause strain. So my point is; take your time and take note of what works for you and what doesn't work. Yes, love is about the heart but it doesn't mean that no head is involved at all.
Settle down with: commit to a long-term relationship with someone
Venture: go on an adventure or mission
Strain: emotional tension and discomfort
wrote... em 28/05/2013 01:26:28
very true, so nowaday girls more likely have tender feelings into people who more set up, they want a feeling of being looked after while not taking care chaps instead. I think its important that both are into the
their headspace. for novelty will worn out.


text:
The week leading up to the new year wasn't exactly how I had pictured it. It was the last week of the boys winter break. I had envisioned walks around downtown looking at the lights, taking down the Christmas tree together, continuing our holiday baking marathon and maybe even a little post Christmas mall browsing. But alas, none of those things happened.
The flu happened.
Or rather, what I guess must have been the flu. Whatever it was took whatever energy (and appetite) I had left to give 2011.
Thankfully, I had made a big batch of lip balm the week before Christmas to give as little handmade gifts to my girlfriends. Thankfully because....well when this girl is sick, she need the comfort of chapstick.
This recipe is super simple. The only hang up I ran across was getting the honey to mix completely into the coconut oil. And beesewax takes alot longer to melt than I had anticipated.
Otherwise it was a really fun afternoon project. I am left only to kick myself for spending so much money on drugstore lip balms all these years.
The recipe came from this blog last year and I tweaked it a bit and she grabbed it from this book where she had tweaked it a bit.
3 Tablespoons Beeswax
1.5 Tablespoons Raw Honey
30 drops Sweet Orange essential oil
(if you want color) 1/2 stick of natural lipstick (I like Jane Iredale and Josie Moran)
Place the pan or bowl in a larger bowl full of cold water. Stir quickly until the mixture begins to change in consistency (it will become thicker).
I, for the life of me, cannot find the website for the supplier of the lip balm containers I bought. I did stumble across this one which has a nice selection. Not as cheap as what I had originally ordered but pretty reasonable.


text:
Chevrolet Malibu 2004-2005 - ProClip Adjustable Console Mount
Adjustable from: 132 - 181 mm to 5.2 - 7.1 inches. For flat (non-curved) console sidewalls. See photo for illustration.
You Just Added a Device Holder a Mounting Base...
Total Added:
To continue, choose an option above
Total Items in Cart:
Subtotal: USD $
ProClip USA, Inc. is the exclusive North American distributor of ProClip vehicle specific mounts for car dashboards, headrests, and device specific holders, mounts, cradles and docks for electronic devices, such as mobile phones, smart phones, tablets, MP3 players, GPS navigation systems, satellite radios, handheld mobile computers, barcode scanners and two-way radios. ProClip products are designed so the consumer can mount their own device to a variety of locations in virtually any vehicle in a matter of minutes. The company's mission is to supply customers with convenient, secure, easy to install car and device mounts that provide a safer and more enjoyable driving experience.


text:
Lone Star Legal Aid (Houston Office)
Who We Are
Operating for more than 60 years, Lone Star Legal Aid (LSLA) is a non-profit law firm that now serves as the fourth largest legal aid organization of its type in the United States. The firm provides free civil legal help to low-income persons who have immediate needs but cannot afford an attorney. Headquartered in Houston, the organization operates another 12 branch offices and covers one-third of the state, including 72 counties in the eastern and Gulf Coast regions of Texas, and also four counties of southwest Arkansas, and has an eligible client population of almost 1.5 million at 125% of federal poverty guidelines. LSLA is the only full-service civil legal aid provider in the region, and it offers advice/legal counsel, brief services, self-help clinics, community legal education, and referrals, as well as full representation in administrative hearings and county, state, and federal courts. Practice areas include domestic abuse, health care, housing, employment, income maintenance, unlawful trade practices, education, civil rights, and disaster relief. LSLA also manages special projects, such as food stamp outreach, language access, elder law clinics, and a legal help line. Cases are accepted on a priority basis, and current priorities include: (1) enhancing and protecting income/economic stability; (2) preserving housing and related needs; (3) improving child outcomes; (4) seeking and maintaining safety, stability, health and well-being; and (5) assisting populations with special vulnerability, such as those who have disabilities, or who are elder, homeless or have limited English language skills.
How to Get Help
You can contact this organization by:
- Contact Type
- Phone
- Phone Number
- (713) 652-5911, 800-733-8394
- Hours
- Monday
- 8:30 am - 12:30 pm All case types
- Tuesday
- 8:30 am - 12:30 pm All non-family law case types
- Wednesday
- 8:30 am - 12:30 pm All non-family law case types
- Thursday
- 8:30 am - 12:30 pm All non-family law case types
- Friday
- 8:30 am - 12:30 pm All non-family law case types
- Documents
Relevant to legal matter
- Information
Public benefits legal issues accepted M-F
- Contact Type
- Appointment
- Documents
Documents related to the legal matter
- Contact Type
- Walk-in
- Hours
- Monday
- 8:30 - 5:00
- Tuesday
- 8:30 - 5:00
- Wednesday
- 8:30 - 5:00
- Thursday
- 8:30 - 5:00
- Friday
- 8:30 - noon
- Documents
Documents related to the legal matter
Who We Serve
- Area(s)
- Fort Bend County
- Harris County
- Montgomery County
- Additional Service Area Info
- Telephone Intake: 800-733-8394
- Cirumstances and languages in which interpreters are provided
Whenever needed
- Income Guidelines
Household income must be 125% of the federal poverty level or below, however, with certain eligibility factors, we can go up to 200% of the federal poverty level.
Household income must be 125% of the federal poverty level or below, however, with certain eligibility factors, we can go up to 200% of the federal poverty level.
Generally, clients are not asked to advance fees for litigation; no fees for legal services.
- Your family's income should be at or below the following percentage of the federal poverty level
- 200
- Is this organization accessible by wheelchair?
- Yes
- Does this organization provide access for the hearing impaired?
- Yes
- Eligibility Restrictions
This program does not serve: Immigrant; Prisoner
Type of Help
- This group provides the following types of services based on your legal needs and its resources:
- Full Legal Representation
- Brief Advice
- Self-Help Materials
- Emergency Instructions
What is an Emergency? An emergency legal matter is one where the person has been served with court papers; has a hearing scheduled; eviction set-out; utility cut-off; landlord lock-out; impending foreclosure; immediate termination from SSI, medicaid, or other governmental assistance without notice; domestic violence; abduction of child in some circumstances; and other situations considered on an individual basis.
General Contact Information
- Address
Lone Star Legal Aid (Houston Office)
1415 Fannin St. (map)Clutch City, TX 77002
- Phone
- 713-652-0077
- Toll Free
- 800-733-8394
- Fax
- 713-652-3814
- Website
- http://www.lonestarlegal.org