Aside from the dated early 60s style, this seems like a reasonable short warning young people to watch out for sexual predators. Sadly, it simply refers to sexual predators as homosexuals, but the warnings are quite reasonable and much the same thing we try to teach younger children today: Don't ride with strangers and be cautious if adults offer too much attention. Lacks any Reefer Madness camp.

Sex through fraud is wrong, and no one seems to deny that. But is it in the same category as being violently raped? Doesn't classing those together diminsh the brutality of violent rapes? Massachusetts did charge a police officer with rape for having sex with a prostitute and refusing to pay her.

Maybe it's time to define a new category of sex crime that is less than rape. It might be easier to convict frat boy date-rapists if the crime wasn't lumped in with the most brutal forms of violent rape.

The real double standard that seems to be the issue here is that men like to see bare flesh when they ogle, while women are more content to ogle a man in a uniform. Further, a topless male athlete is just a deodorant commercial, while a topless female athlete gets headlines. Unless they're in the pool, where men are down to almost nothing and women's suits keep covering more. I'm not advocating nude sports for women, just saying that women oglers have many mainstream opportunities to indulge, while men have to buy magazines for a little titillation.

That website is a hoot. Clearly the person running it has little idea of how to actually use Photoshop (one hint - don't paste a mouthful of adult teeth into a baby's mouth). I'm going to use this as the "How Not To" example next time I teach a Photoshop class.

The metaphor of addiction was used early in the article and while calling something an addiction is overused, it makes a good point. A normal drinker has a drink or two and becomes relaxed, possibly even witty and engaging. A normal conversationalist shares a little bit of information about other people in reasonable circumstances and the conversation is entertaining. Alcoholics can't have just one or two drinks and are quickly drunken bores. Gossips are even more boring than drunks, except to other gossips. If your circle of friends has nothing better to discuss than each other, pulling yourself out of the mix isn't going to endear you to those friends, but that doesn't mean there aren't more interesting conversational partners available.

Normally I hate motivational posters, but saw one last week that is appropriate here:

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

Sounds like the writer and her friends have small minds and need gossip to entertain each other.

What I'm seeing here is that two guys have been roommates for 3 years and the original tenant still considers the apartment to be "his." Maybe for a year, his role is still primary, but after 3, I'd consider a roommate situation to be shared equally. If LW was going to assert rights, it should have been when the pregnant girlfriend moved in. Now it's only reasonable to request that the single man leave and let the couple hold the apartment. He should have wised up a couple of months ago.

Considering that the only people actually purchasing tickets for Hannah Montana are the parents of 10 year old girls, subjecting them to a test of knowledge about this disney pseudo-star is just adding insult to injury.

As mentioned by others, there are - or used to be - laws against scalping. Enforce them and the problem ends.

Whatever happened to sub-vocalization? Not too terribly long ago, there was the idea that a mike attached to your throat would allow you to speak without letting everyone nearby hear you. Now that bluetooth devices are small enough to make this practical, I don't see the mikes. That is the device that would get me to put a bluetooth bug in my ear.

Listen, I'm a Mac fan. I've owned Macs for almost 20 years, often in conjunction with PCs, sometimes just Macs. They are undoubtedly a better computer in every way, shape and form. But this argument that resale value proves that Macs are cheaper than PCs is silly. It's made sillier by the declaration that this is the ultimate argument and that it will settle things once and for all. The resale market is barely a drop in the bucket of total computer sales. Sure, there are always a couple of dozen Macs on eBay - about the daily sales from any one Apple Store. We could even argue that the reason Macs have a higher re-sale value is that there are so few of them to buy.

If you want to argue that the cost of owning a Mac is less than the cost of owning a PC, that is a story I'd like to read. In fact, it gets written every couple of years in MacWorld. Compare the cost of additional software, virus protection, network connections and whatever other Mac-standard items that must be purchased separately for a PC. Compare the costs of maintenance over a standard 3 year life. Mention that Macs typically last 5 years rather than the 2.5 average of a PC. Those are valid arguments. Resale value? I doubt that more than 2% of Mac-owners sell their older models.

There certainly has been a dust-up over this article. It's actually a good piece, but the title is so overblown that no one seems able to read without arguing. If the title changed "Once and for all" to "Just one more reason" then we wouldn't be arguing here. Of course, that is probably the point.