Frustrated? Want to let Target have a piece of your mind?

After poking around the Target website, I found this:

http://www.target.com/exec/obidos/handle-generic-form/ref=ref-tag/601-3840891-5370521?action=next%2dpage&target=help%2fself%2dservice%2demail%2dform%2ehtml&display=pha&browse=1041350&method=GET

If it doesn't work for you, try linking through:

1) Main site

2) At bottom, in middle, big red question mark, "Contact Us" in right column.

3) "Our Stores & Company" header, then "Target Pharmacy"

4) Then, middle of page:

"Need more help? Please submit your request using our online form, or contact us about a different subject."

The online form allows you to enter your info, a subject (like "Comments about requesting a prescription refill", and then, your Questions & Comments.

Have at 'em! :-)

And I agree, the Celyn posting with the EC how-to with normal BC pills rocked. Thank you! That definitely should be included into the original article.

Setting an example by turning our backs on the needy will not stop peoples' lives from self-destructing.

How can love and help and steadfast calm care be a bad thing? Yes, people will make bad decisions, hurting themselves and others. Free choice is a double-edged sword.

One generation of removing any help will not turn the tide! We evolved as a social species, and like it or not, we are all tied together in this mess of a world. There is no collection conscience that will "learn" through freezing to death in a dumpster.

Inspiring people to create better lives for themselves is admirable. Yes, the urge to strive upwards has to come from within, but the beauty of people like Martha is that they are the light at the end of the tunnel for the lost souls.

That light might not pull everyone out, but its presence gives hope to those who might have nothing else.

In the end, it's not futile if it helps someone.

As cosmicmojo wrote:

"The VAST majority of salon readers DO NOT like her. Let the market self-correct and STOP publishing her. She is NOT a good writer and should NOT be published on Salon. It's just bad, self-indulgent, junky writing."

Hey, can we have a little electronic poll?

Seriously.

Truth be told, I read the first paragraph only (as many others have said, squick! squick!) then I just jumped right to the letters.

Hell, the letters are better reading than the article. Hmmm, maybe adding letter piggybacking onto article posts has more purposes than I thought...

And even more so, WHY is it the TOP STORY?!

Who the hell is JT Leroy?

I got books coming out my bum (that Oprah has not stamped as Grade A, by the way) and I never heard of him/she/it either.

I'm rethinking my Salon subscription too.

Geez, when I first joined in August 2004, for $35, this seemed a great deal. I raved to all my friends and family how smart and passionate the writing was on here, and now, well, yes, it has slipped. This article is a real case in point.

I'm tempted to think the editors got punchy after reading the letters to her last story, and thought "Ha! We'll show them!"

I'm almost expecting next week, or maybe Friday, they'll have an entire day devoted to Ayelet Waldman.

And speaking as a graphic designer, the new design here = not so hot.

I mean, I love Cary Tennis, but he can't float this whole site.

Another poll idea: if Cary started his own site, leaving Salon, would you still read here?

Maybe all this Ayelet is making me CRANKY!

Grrrrrr, argh!

Sorry Cary, I disagree too.

The way I was raised, guests are treated like royalty. If there is only one bed, they get it and the host sleeps on the floor. And so on.

Certainly in such a plush house to be served by three maids, and even if not, the host's duty is to take care of guests and secure their belongings. If he cannot do so, then he must warn them. With a theft occurring in his home, however it happened, yes, the host bears responsibility.

I'd feel it was my obligation to repay this money too as a host, even if I had to borrow to do it.

I agree with another poster too - it was a nice gesture for the father to pay back the friend - but it should have been a closed deal. To expect the poor kid to repay the father is like getting ripped off twice! I'd wonder too about gaining them as in-laws.

A bad thing was fixed by the host. It should have ended there as far as the boyfriend was concerned. He should not be obligated to cough up $1,000 because of misguided money honor.

>>>Wow, this one is a toughie. Given the information we have, I don't think there is a clear answer. Here are some questions I have...<<<

Excellent analysis! That does make me rethink this in a new light. If the letter writer is reading this, I apologize for guessing your father may be a "nasty piece of work." Indeed, there are a few foggy details that make a hardline judgement tough.

Erfourth, if you're not a detective, think about it as a career ;)

That's all.