Then, if I can speak to my experiences with other demographics.... I work with people across large groups of demographics. They are far more likely to use something if it can be ported in a phone or tablet. This seems to be true across all ages and socio-economic backgrounds, but especially so for anyone under 30. I know a rare few people still using paper planner, for example, but those are generally people who are older than me (I'm ganging up on 50 faster than I'd like).

Absolutely an app. There are many products that make life easier. I am not at all inclined to haul them all around with me as physical products when I could have them all in one place as apps in my phone instead. This goes doubly so for products that I would use for work.

I have noticed more spam lately, but usually when I go to report one, someone has already noted that they reported it. I think that's very helpful. I hate spammers. But SPAM is good on white bread with mayo and pickles. I don't think I've had a SPAM sandwich in more than 20 years. Now I'm hungry.

I think we are on the same page, especially with the bolded.

Respectfully, I disagree with this. If getting an appointment to a psych is a problem, and issues are becoming unmanageable or leaning dangerous, you can present at an emergency centre who has a psych on hand. I really can't get behind going on the advice of an untrained medical practitioner for psych dx or rx. The stakes are too high for that risk, IMO and IME.

Holy smokes! Absolutely NOT! Even with a previous dx of depression, there is a HUGE leap from that to Rxing Seroquel. Quite bluntly, I would be seriously angry with a GP/Family doctor who did that so recklessly. You really need to see a qualified psychiatrist for a proper diagnosis of anything that would warrant Seroquel. That is not a light-weight anti-psychotic. You don't just go casually tossing out a dx of schizoid disorders and/or bi-polar based on a phone call. I'm appalled. If that were my spouse, I would be mother-flippin' outraged!

^^^ This is where I would start. It sounds like they know that they aren't providing a healthy upward mobility for current employees, but it also seems like they are "stuck in a rut" with that process. I think all of your suggestions are good, but instead of asking to consolidate your hours into 4 8-hour days, I would start by asking for 40 hours a week. If they go for that -- great! If they don't, then you can negotiate from that larger target and have a bit more leverage on getting your 32 hours to become 4 full-time (8hr) days. And, definitely follow up with what qualifications are necessary for the next promotion -- what training, certs, etc. you should be getting. Ask them if they have supports to help you acquire those qualifications. I would also ask them flat-out if seniority is their deciding factor. If they admit that, and you also feel that you'll always be held down by that, then I would let them know that this is likely what loses them good employees. After that, I would be looking for a position elsewhere, but I wouldn't tell them that. However, on your exit interview when you do leave, be sure to let them know that their seniority policies (whether written or not) severely limit opportunities for advancement, lead to low employee morale, and cause good employees to seek other opportunities outside the company, and that despite efforts to improve your qualifications to fit their needs, this policy is the main reason why you left.

I think that guy lives everywhere. :laugh:

I kind of felt that way, too. I should have stopped watching when Dean + Rory ended, and then stuck my fingers in my ears forever after whenever someone brought up Gilmore Girls. -_-

Xavier is a really common French name around here. We say "zah-vee-ay." ETA: And, if you have a French person named Javier, we say "zhah-vee-ay."

No. It doesn't. If you loved the original, this will leave you feeling like you'd like all those hours refunded back.

I could not give back a puppy that cute!! Does he have a name? (Forgive me if I missed it already.)

Mmhmm... have you read them? "there is no requirement to specify" is vastly different from your supposition that "It is not polite for the happy couple to tell the guests what to wear." Just saying... :)

I see people leaving church in jeans all the time. I'm assuming they had them on inside the church, too. I wouldn't know for sure, though. ;)

Miss Manners* disagrees with you and instead suggests that the couple-to-be should do their guests a favour and be rather specific in the wording of a dress code. Perhaps the OP's friend should pick up her more recent book. * AKA Judith Martin

Then, I think she should err on the side of requesting the more formal / less casual dress. When it comes to dress codes, it's best to be as specific as possible.

It isn't a style unto itself, but this feature is common to 18th C. neoclassical paintings.

One of my faves is "I need a free math program for my gifted 3 year old to do independently."

Having teens is easy peasy. The letting go... that's the hard part.

To each her own. Personally, no way in hell would I want to be pregnant at 46 (I'm only a bit older than that now). Adopt? That's another story.

I made this meal last night and used ground beef, as we don't eat lamb. It was very, very good and my guys said the recipe is a definite keeper. http://mrsipskitchen.blogspot.ca/2013/01/jamie-olivers-15-minute-meals-lamb.html

I could be remembering this wrong, but I think Joanne did that for a time. She super-sweet and very helpful. Maybe she might chime in?

When my son went through that stage I told him to enjoy being a know-it-all because in a few short years, he would be just as stupid as the rest of us. He didn't think that was funny. I thought his reaction was hilarious. I mean... if they're going to act like that, why not have a little fun with it, eh?

The bolded was what I was getting at except I eliminate the "disabled" from the equation. Disability is not a factor in quality of life. It is the person's conditions that are the factors -- conditions that make life bearable or not. I don't pretend to have the answers to what conditions qualify going that much further to save a life (and I never said I did). My point was that the quality of the afflicted person's life needs to be at the centre of any decision -- not our personal emotions, needs or wants. It doesn't matter how much "I" want my baby*, or how much "I" will hurt to lose her. If she's going to live in agony, what gives me the right to make her do so? ​*hypothetical baby.

No. I don't not mean disabilities. I am talking about people whose physical challenges and anomalies produce physical agony.