Principaldad's Comments (1254)

“"Legal" is a relative term. It is not openly allowed for a bank to take money from another account to cover a debt unless a court order is involved. The only legal way would for it to be in the terms of the account (which it often is for big banks). Anything else would be actionable in civil court.

BOA actually did this to me. My wife has a small free checking account for her personal expenses. BOA "mistakenly" tried to charge a hefty maintenance fee for it. This overdrew the account and overdraft fees came into play. The bank automatically charged our credit card with a cash advance. When we called, the bank quickly reversed all of the faIse charges, but they stated they could not reverse the credit card advance. I had a balance on the card so the high interest rate on the cash advance became a problem. That incident was the beginning of the end for me and BOA.

Even in this instance, I could have taken action against BOA. They instituted this policy (they call it a service) after I opened the account and with no notice. It would have been a simple matter to deal with it in small claims court. It just wasn't worth it to me. I just chose to take my business elsewhere.

Without it written into the terms of the account, it is not legal. My current institution does not have that policy.”

“Already did it. Moved my checking, savings, and kid's college fund from BOA to my local credit union. Then I refinanced my home from BOA to a local credit union. I am in the process of closing my BOA credit card (I haven't charged anything to it in months).

I will not do business with BOA again.”

“What has become obsolete in the last decade is good journalism. It has been replaced by articles such as the one above.”

“I agree it is an excellent idea.

I am guessing that the soccer balls and coats are more expensive because it would be a bad idea to have a charitable item for a child be made in a sweat shop by a different child.”

“Etsy is a site with many stores, much like Ebay, but with handmade items.”

“I am trying to figure out where the statement in the headline, "record unemployment" came from. As far as I could tell neither guy in the clip mentioned it, and unemployment is not, as far as I can tell, anywhere near the record highs of the Great Depression.”

“Quotes from an vaccine critic site don't mean much. How about the links to those actual studies in pubmed?

Also, squalene is not used in the H1N1 swine flu vaccine in the US (although I read the decision was made to use it in Canada).
http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1flu/vaccination/pregnant_qa.htm

It would seem that if that web site misrepresents something like what is in the vaccine, then you should consider the other information in the quote highly suspect.”

“It cannot be denied that the usage of thimerosal has dropped immensely. It is at a small fraction of the doses received prior to 2001. Some children who don't get the flu shot get zero thimerosal. Others get trace amounts. Those who do get the flu shot receive about the same amount that children in the 1970's received through vaccinations.

Despite this, there has been no decrease in autism rates.”

“I stated "A" correlation is not proof, not "massive" correlation. I also did not caplitalize "not" and I did not use an exclamation point. It is dishonest for you place that statement in quotes as if I made it. Stay away from the strawmen (and the false equivalencies while you are at it).

It takes more than a study indicating correlation to determine causation. Incorrectly assuming that correlation is causation is responsible for many of the false things that scientists have believed throughout history.”

“Ditto.”

“Did you see the latest accusation that she made about you below?”

“MNmommy, how can you stand talking to people who are so openly abusive?”

“"Pointing someone to a biased source isn't helping them be informed."

How else are vaccine critics supposed to make people scared of vaccinations? If they were to point to truthful sites that tell the whole story then nobody would be frightented. The biased sites are the only tool they have.”

“There is nothing wrong with proper scientific questioning and reassessment of accepted knowledge. What is wrong is people like Maher who don't know anything packaging misrepresented information as "questioning".

The study you cite looks like a good example. Someone observes the possiblity of a problem and concucts a scientific study to examine the hypotheses. What needs to be understood though is the results of that study do not prove what you think they do. A correlation is not proof that one thing causes another. There can be a number of factors at work. For example, the reason delays in vaccination may be pertinent. Other correlations in the groups (such as smoking) may be important as well.

That is what proper questioning and study is about. It is not, "let's do a study and prove our point". It is a path to greater knowledge. With that greater knowledge comes the ability to make better decisions.”

“It looks like I may have been wrong about the statement that the city may not notice the difference. The professor in the link I provided states that the government is subsidizing work done by the Church. In effect, the Church has set up various charitable works in the city and the government pays part of the cost. The Church picks up the balance (a little over half).

This would make it difficult for another organization to just step in and take over. Hopefully, something could be worked out with the Church running some programs and the city running others

It is interesting to note that the ACLU argued on behalf of the Catholic Church in this case, stating that the proposed law should have a religious exemption.”

“It will not be just as it has been, and I did not intend to imply that. For example, the article indicates that they are being paid to run several city shelters. If those are owned by the city, then of course the Church will no longer be running them. However, since they were being paid to run them, some other nonprofit will be paid to do so.

To your questions:
a) I don't know that it should be called a threat. The Church is not treating it as a penalty, but saying that they can't do business that way. I disagree, but that is their position.

b) The 8 million from the city does not disappear. It will go to other contractors who will do those same services. I doubt the city will notice the difference (the Washington Post article quotes city officials saying it is not a big loss). The church will continue to do the things with its own money ($10 million according to the article) that they do with their own money today.”

“First and foremost, I disagree with the Church's position in this case. They seem to be able to overlook other laws they they must comply with (for example they cannot refuse to hire an atheist in one of their hospitals). In a lot of places they can't even refuse to hire a gay person. They have agreed to comply with these laws. Somehow though, they cannot be asked to extend the same non-discrimination courtesy to gay marriage.

However, the author of this blog needs to get the story straight. The Catholic Church has not threatened to stop feeding the homeless. They have said they are not going to continue with city contracts to do so. There is nothing stopping them from providing these services on their own without government support, which is something that the Catholic Church does all over the country.

Patrick Deneen, an associate professor of government from Georgetown University stated the following in a Q&A regarding the Church's position.
"My best understanding is that the Church will continue to provide social and charitable services (in this sense, the Post's article today was not strictly correct - the Church is not threatening to withdraw services as such); it is only in cases where there is a contracted or licensed service that the District would adjudge the Church to be ineligible to provide those services on a contractual basis."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/12/DI2009111208573.html”

“"The article said "The word "allergy" did not even exist a century ago" "

Based on that, the author was wrong. A century ago would be 1909. As you state, the word was coined before that.”

“I am not talking about tipping the same percentage either.

My point is that we are not talking about giving a server at an expensive restaurant a lower than standard tip, but that a standard tip as a low priced restaurant is often not adequate for the server's effort.

Like I said, if you tip the same percentage then a server at a cheap restaurant may have to wait up to 20 tables to make the same in tips that a server at an expensive restaurant gets from ONE table. They work just as hard as servers at expensive restaurants.

I may tip a server $6 on a $15 check (40%) at a cheap restaurant, but there is no way I am going to tip $80 on a $200 check unless I am celebrating a lottery win.”

“I don't think anyone is advocating cutting the percentage for fine dining. 15-20% is still the custom. I think the point was that if you go into Denny's the bill for 2 people might only be $15. A $3 tip in that case doesn't quite cut it. They have to work 10-20 tables to get the same tip that a server at Morton's gets from one table.”

“Good luck with the topic Cable. I am bowing out.”

“I don't care if two people post their names or even twenty. My statement was that not all health and research professionals post their names. Those that do, do so for their own reasons (possibly as an appeal to authority). Those that don't, also do so for their own reasons. Do you want names so that you can call and harass people?

You and others are the ones who brought up professions, not Cable. I have not seen him use his profession to claim himself an authority. He is merely responding to your accusations. He does not even claim to be a health care professional, but rather a researcher.”

“You argue that people posting many comments to a blog is suspicious. However, you post many comments to the same blogs. That is holding people to a different standard than yourself.

Also, Just above you stated that someone should post their name, employer, etc. You however, choose to remain anonymous (which is your right). If that is also holding others to a separate standard.”

“I accept that explanation and never implied otherwise. My point was that you and others here seem to hold people who disagree with you to a different standard.”

“Not all "professionals" do that.

Divulging your name on the internet has inherent risks (especially if you are posting comments to a controversial blog). If a person does not want their name known, then that is their right. You are anonymous. That is your right.”