Thank you for the new comment system.

I recommend at least displaying the number of comments made so far by the option to read comments. Perhaps a subtotal for "Editor's Choice" comments could also be included. Also, it would be nice to have the system keep track of which comments have been made since a given logged-in reader last read the comments; it's a feature common to virtually all forums.

These features would enable us to more easily keep up with new user-generated content. In the old system, it was very easy to keep track of which letters I'd read since it was essentially part of the article-publishing system.

When you willingly work excessive hours under an unfair master, you devalue both your own time and everyone else's in your position. It's not just about you; labor is a market, and the price is set by supply and demand. An excessively supply - i.e., people working more than they ought - effectively drops the cost. So, if your boss can get you to do two people's work, they don't need to hire two people - and that's either someone out of work or, in your case, a parasite of a boss who does nothing.

Overall, each person who allows themself to be exploited just makes life harder both for themselves and everyone else.

If you dislike the Broadsheet so much, you can just stop reading it, rather than peppering it with snide, unhelpful comments.

Don't be silly, Tatyana, nobody follows all the dictums of the Old Testament. Without that, you have no point.

It fascinates me that "spin" has stretched until it now has effectively morphed into outright, bald-faced lies. What do we have to do to convince the broader media that a blatantly, verifiably untrue claim should be immediately identified as such?

Q

It is not appropriate for the government to tell people what to do with their bodies. Neither is it appropriate for the government to tell people who they must consult with on the same topic; indeed, there's no real distinction, the latter is simply a type of the former.

Sure, a woman probably ought to take with her spouse about an abortion, but that doesn't mean the government should intervene in that process.

If an abortion were solely about the child (it's not, it's primarily an issue of the bearer of the child), then all the same reasoning that applies to child support would apply to abortion. Indeed, abortion is virtually indefensible on the face of it if it were solely about the child.

The moment the child is no longer inside someone else's body, it becomes a different type of entity; in the same sense as once the child is no longer a financial dependent. Child support only applies in between these two events. Attempting to draw an analogy between child-support and abortion makes no more sense than trying to claim that people should be able to abort their adult descendents.

And, ranndino, your attempts at claiming the logical high-ground would be much more defensible if they weren't sprinkled so liberally with vicious smears and other plain tirades. You've been by far the worst user of the attitudes you decry.

There is a significant distinction between deliberative dialogue and snarky, useless commentary. The comment I criticized is very much in the latter category; a useless bit of non-dialogue that served solely to insult and had no redeeming or constructive merit. The attempt to defend it as "dialog" is therefore missing the point; my criticism wasn't that I think we shouldn't engage in dialog, but rather that we should and that you aren't.

Perhaps her behavior is appropriate for school, but what are the odds that she'll still act that way in the wider world, when it's not? Yes, most kids take stuff too seriously, but it's good training for when things are serious.

The presence of campaign contributions is not enough to prove destructive Brown/Miers style cronyism - they must also be painfully unqualified. I would have preferred if this article had addressed the level of the appointees' abilities as well. Appointing loyal party members is not, in itself, unusual.

Offensive? Only if you don't have a sense of humor. I think these are great.

The father may deserve to know, but I don't see how he has any kind of "right" to know.

These kinds of laws are written for one, sole purpose: to make it more difficult to obtain an abortion. Period. Everything else is pure smokescreen.

I learned a long time ago to copy every post to my clipboard before submitting. There's no other way to guarantee you won't lose it. While getting logged out like that is indeed a pity, it's also quite possible for the net to simply lose your post with no fault on the part of the destination website.

Nervous twitching has long been shown to consume calories - sometimes in surprisingly significant amounts. I don't think it's an accident that the stereotypical nervous person is skinny.

I find it hard to believe that an investigation into a long-gone administration over fast-tracking a drug with ample reason to be fast-tracked (e.g., it's been approved for a long time throughout Europe) is much of a threat.

What if we want to contribute to the prosecution fund?

Lots of people manage to nurse in public without displaying what some people don't want to see. I think it's rather disingenuous to conflate nursing with indecent exposure. One act is necessary, the other is illegal, and it only requires a small piece of fabric to distinguish between them.

"I have a feeling that pharmacist would be fired."

Yeah, but it'd be worth it. :D