In previous postings on this subject, when the county board was denying Hester's requests to give her partner the pension fund, Broadsheet either linked to other blogs that gave contact info by which to send messages to the Board, or, in one instaance, ev en gave an e-mail address to contact them directly.

Now that it at least seems they are doing right by Ms. Hester and her partner (or at least seriously considering doing so), no contact info of any kind, first or second-hand. Wouldn't right now be an es pecially good time to send thanks and assurances that they are, indeed, doing the right thing to a board that might not only be deeply discinlined to do so, but have considerable pressure on them from other quarters not to? Should we only be talking to p eople when we wish to apply pressure or yell at them, and not also to recognize, appreciate, and encourage good work?

If anyone else wants to send a note of thanks, here's the e-mail address that was given in a recent Broadsheet post:

CountyConnection (at) co.ocean.nj.uss

WTF is WRONG about the idea that women -- JUST LIKE MEN -- are more interesting and fun to be around when they happen to be good-looking, well-dressed, and self-confident, AS WELL AS intelligent and accomplished, than when they're unattractive, poorly attired, and slovenly?

While it's obviously a problem when women, as they too often are, get judged (and often by themselves) first, foremost, or only on their looks -- and while one can understand some oversensitivity on the subject considering for how long so many women HAVE been judged on just those terms -- we're at least starting to get past that.

So why the flipout -- and the near-certain hypocrisy, unless you really want us to believe that you (almost alone on the planet, if so) truly don't care one whit about what the guys you interact with look like, how they dress, and how they carry and present themselves.

Yes, Danica McKellar is obviously gorgeous as well as brilliant; that's a GOOD thing -- and the fact that I have probably 2/3 her IQ and at best 1/10 her looks doesn't change that, nor make me resent her for it. No snark necessary.

Go ahead, flame away; you know I'm right.

...with the choice of words of "Anonymous (2/15 9:21pm)" -- "sends the message that they did not care enough about you to stick around."

While that may be the message that a survivor of a parental suicide RECEIVES, it is NOT necessarily the message that was SENT. No sane, functioning parent would consciously send -- and most would deny even unconsciously sending -- such a message. Of course the key words there are "sane" and "functioning."

The message being SENT is often, therefore, "I am NOT sufficiently functional or sane to continue to stick around, EVEN THOUGH I may still care about you deeply -- enough to stick around if I only could." It is largely because we survivors (yes, me too) of parental suicide have such a hard time recognizing that the message is what it is, and NOT what anonymous claims it to be, that we suffer.

And, of course, since depression very likely has both genetic and environmental components, the child of a suicide is thus triply challenged -- tendencies toward depression and risk-factors for suicide that are bad enough in their own right, PLUS having to contend with the perception that one's parent(s) "did not care enough... to stick around"? Please.

Let's not make it any worse than it has to be. That message is NOT always what is being sent, and we really don't need to hear that it is, do we now? M'kay? I wish anonymous the very best in trying to realize what their parent's message really was; it may not have been what s/he thinks, and I hope that it wasn't.

I'm more or less with "Scorch Marks," I think. I've had two great friends marry people that I knew would become disasters eventually -- and both did. And I was part of the support system through both breakups.

In each case, when I asked the friend if I and other people who were worried should have pushed harder to have them reconsider the marriage at the time, both had the self-awareness and the honesty to say it wouldn't have accomplished anything -- except ruining OUR friendships. Sometimes -- maybe most of the time, maybe even all of the time -- people have got to figure these things out for themselves. And friends have to accept that, painful as it may be to everyone at the time.

From these and similar or analogous experiences, I've concluded that the role of a real friend is to say your piece, and then let your friend decide just how they need you to be a friend... and then, whatever it is, to the extent of your ability, do it. And then stand ready to help pick up the pieces, if it comes to that.

does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. The lightbulb has to find its own path.

Gorsh, I just crack me up.

the blatancy of the lie that she'd been out to dinner with her INSTITUTIONALIZED, AUTISTIC brother instead of the blind date that it really was -- and this is verbatim:>

Why is that an issue? What's the issue here?

...that I was ever involved with eventually called back at some point, no matter who had precipitated the breakup. Sometimes it was worth it to get back together for whatever amount of time -- more often it became clear that whatever made it go south the first time was still there, and still making it go south. Upshot for me: Lesson learned -- no more going back. Pain / profit ratio not good enough.

But clearly your mileage may vary.