One reader suggested we use search engines to fill us in on this story. It's customary for a writer to provide some background before launching into an article that would make most of us say "huh?" I have to agree with another reader who wondered whether it was internet sweeps week--the story was esoteric gossip and certainly didn't merit its front and center position.

Most of us don't care what the pope writes about our lives; unless one is a practicing catholic, it doesn't apply, so arguments based on it are pointless. Why should Americans be subject to the restrictions of any particular faith?

I still can't figure out why catholics think it's OK to try to thwart god's plan with the rhythm method but not with something that actually works.

which is that she's pregnant and drinking two OR three glasses of wine with her three course meal, this from the holier than thou supermom who couldn't imagine working when her first was born.

Does nobody else think it's weird that Flanagan was traumatized by being left home alone in SEVENTH grade? Don't normal junior high students long for an empty house so they can have their friends over? Maybe her problem stems from an overly dependent nature.

1. Loud talking co-workers ARE horribly irritating, but so are petty, personal ones who monitor your comings and goings, and there are no headphones to tune that out.

2. LW doesn't say what Olga's actual job is, but in general, writers are more expensive than proofreaders, so it makes sense for a writer to let proofreaders catch mistakes. If some of those aren't actual mistakes but more judgment calls, then the writer uses her more expensive (and often more experienced) judgment to decide what changes to make. This isn't laziness; it's doing her job efficiently.

3. Benefits, as one excellent comment already pointed out, are meant to be used. Does the LW also return a portion of her salary to the company to show her devotion?

LW didn't say much about how Uncle Danny's personality, but he sounds like he is lonely. Since he is family and they ostensibly care about him, maybe they should find out why he comes for those long visits. Maybe he has some major problems in his life, and LW and her husband could help him to sort them out. She doesn't say he's mean or rude or otherwise unpleasant.

"In contrast to all evolutionary formulas, the most "successful" members of our species (in terms of health, wealth and status) are now producing fewer offspring. Those kids are more likely to thrive, it's true, but they're also more likely to lead to a genetic dead end by not reproducing at all, putting the kibosh on some very selfish genes."

Is the author implying that healthy and wealthy people are necessarily selfish, or that people who don't have children are selfish, or both? In what way is it selfish not to add to the six billion plus world population?

It hurts me a LOT, and makes me bleed, and causes unsightly ingrown hairs, and is smooth for only a few hours--who wants a five o'clock shadow there?

I got electrolysis on my "bikini line", but for me, shaving everything is ridiculous. I have found that mature men like mature women, and mature women have hair down there. The trend toward bareness is like the trend toward body piercing and tattoos--just 'cause the kids are doing it doesn't mean I'm going to.

Worman complains about the comparison of peasants and slaves to animals. I think the writer was not actually comparing peasants and slaves to animals, but rather comparing the concept of cruelty in one age to the concept of cruelty in another, which should be a valid point of comparison no matter how you view yourself in the biological scheme. When the instances of cruelty are compared, it is obvious that killing and eating is in fact worse than enslaving or beating.

Excellent letter. For me, I just want a place to live in where nobody can tell me how many pets I can have and how much they can weigh, where I can paint my bedroom yellow if I want, where I can plant lilacs knowing that I will probably see them finally bloom. So I need to buy a house. I might end up with a "fixer" because it's all I can afford, but my idea of a fixer is a shabby, outdated place that will stay shabby and outdated because I am not bothered by 50s kitchen decor or peeling paint on the garage. Does it still work? Is it still safe? Then it stays. I don't understand the phenomenon of regular people with full-time jobs who willingly spend all their time (and money) renovating perfectly OK houses, with the main goal of increasing the value. For what? Isn't the value in living in the house? In enjoying it? The conventional wisdom these days is that you have to change everything immediately if it isn't your dream house. We're supposed to take classes at Home Depot and do the work ourselves, with the result that a lot of "completely updated" houses look pretty amateurish. And the number of "flippers" trawling around the MLS adds to the competition for houses I can actually afford, which they will then turn into houses I can't afford.

I can't imagine actually giving up the autonomy of a house once I finally have it. I think the LW should just be in the house for a while, and plant some flowers and put up curtains and decide whether the problem is the house or just the kind of depression that can strike with major life changes. Then if it is the house, decide whether it is THAT house. Maybe something less romantic and more practical would suit them. I wish her luck and hope I won't have to write to Cary myself when I buy a place.