Letters to the Editor
jennj99738
Published Letters: 8
-
Don't Leave Just Yet!
[Read the article: I let my friends stay with me and now they're evicting me!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You have to get your lease reviewed by an attorney actually licensed to practice law in your state. Sorry, Cary, you're friend doesn't cut it on this one. If you are on the lease, YOU ARE LIKELY RESPONSIBLE IF YOUR SO-CALLED FRIENDS DEFAULT ON THE LEASE OR DAMAGE THE PLACE. Now this may not be a problem if the landlord agrees to remove you from the lease and add the "friends" or if you're on month-to-month but you need to see an attorney.
You've been through enough, you do not need to get stuck with a bill for the entire remaining term of your lease due to these losers or even get sent to collections.
Also, you could definitely be considered to be the landlord to these people and be subject to other restrictions.
No good deed goes unpunished.
-
Protected Free Speech...Not
[Read the article: Think you're anonymous? Watch out.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow, some people who posted earlier on here are truly psychic. You know that they both hate men. You know they have a man-hating website. You know that they both love to sue people. You should be on that NBC show that on now. Forget about professional magicians!
This is not something to be taken lightly. All of you should know that making derogatory statements about a person's chasteness or lack thereof is DEFAMATORY PER SE. You don't need to prove much more than the statements were made. It's time people think before they post. Potential employers google job applicants now as a matter of routine. You think an employer may not think twice about hiring a woman who arouses such hatred from people? You think an employer may not think that there is the potential for violence? You're wrong. This is more than a comment that someone's a moron, etc. This is hate speech that is trying to incite to violence and it's not protected by the First Amendment. The site should have taken down the posts when asked just like when a newspaper is asked to publish a retraction of a libelous statement. That likely would have been the end of it, but no, the decided that these statements, which have no apparent applicability to the content of the website, should remain. Probably, the operator liked the publicity. Sick.
-
Wow, way to blame the victim
[Read the article: Think you're anonymous? Watch out.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How do you arrive at your conclusion that had the women not complained about the message board postings, only a few people would have known? This is the internet. Anyone with a computer and internet access can find out. Google the name of the women and the posts are going to show up. I guess your conclusion on this matter is simply to bolster your argument to blame the victim. For sure, publicity will make some people want to know more about the subject but this doesn't make such behavior right. These women stood up for something they believed was wrong. That's something to appreciate, not ridicule.
One woman already said this cost her a job offer. As such, this is defamatory. As I stated before, some of the statements were defamatory per se. Put the blame on the responsible party where it belongs.
-
Quality of Life
[Read the article: What I wouldn't do for my cat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When we take a pet into our lives, we must take care of him. The pet is not disposable simply because she has the misfortune of getting sick. Just because there are a hundred more dogs/cats at the shelter does not mean you give up on the companion who trusts you to do right by her.
The amount of the money the treatment costs is relative to the benefits the animal will receive. I had a 7 y.o. yorkie who developed lymphangiectasia and irritable bowel disease. After weeks of misdiagnosis, I found myself at the hospital where the President's dogs are treated. Needless to say the treatment was expensive. However, it was all explained to me up front. I looked at the young age of my dog, the potential outcome and decided I would go into debt to save my dog. He was a tough little dog and fought the whole way. When he was 12, he suffered a relapse and told me he had had enough. I held him while my vet euthanized him. I suffered not one bit of guilt. Regret and grief certainly but never guilt.
Sorry, but $1300 is not a lot of money especially when the outcome is likely to be great. We use credit cards for far less worthy purposes. If you can't afford emergencies like this or vet insurance, don't adopt. The dog or cat will always need vet treatment. Insurance doesn't always cover routine treatments like teeth cleaning which is a necessity not a luxury. Give that pet a chance to be adopted by someone who can afford him. Sounds harsh but otherwise, we're just prolonging the inevitable.
And I really do appreciate the people who don't understand people who get joy from pets because at least they're admitting this and not getting pets. Such as the guy whose girlfriend loves her pet. Do her a favor and break up with her now because this will never change.
Finally, no vet can make you feel guilty. You feel that yourself, likely because you're doing something to feel guilty about. Something like choosing that 52" plasma over your pet.