Jul 21, 2012 at 23:48:02
“Currently I have it on pretty much all day for background noise. If this were to ever happen, I would never turn my TV on again. There are just too many alternatives that don't charge by the hour that idea simply would not survive”
May 19, 2012 at 22:11:57
“They don't care about improving ratings. They already moved the show to death slot Fridays. Other people aren't watching and they certainly aren't going to start now. All they did was basically give a big middle finger to all the fans who currently do watch and would follow Community to the ends of the earth.”
thickfreakness on May 19, 2012 at 23:10:06
“It was moved to Fridays because they believe their rabid audience will follow the show anywhere. It got a 1.3 ratting on Monday which is horrible and with those numbers should never have been renewed. But if it can pull a 1.3 on Friday it is doing very well. If the new show runners can improve it to a 1.5-1.6 then they have a hit for a Friday. But a 1.5-1.6 on Monday would be below average”
fearthebetenoire on May 19, 2012 at 22:30:24
“Interesting argument. I think it is more likely that the network believes the faithful will follow the show to Friday, when lower ratings aren't as damaging and that new blood may spark increased viewership. However, I can buy the idea that Community will just be a place holder for the network until the network can come up with another show that gets better ratings. But if that is really the case, why fire Mr. Harmon?
As for giving the finger to fans, it certainly seems to be the aggregate effect of the network's decisions, but is probably just the result of the usual tone deafness that seems to afflict some network executives from time to time rather than malicious animus toward the faithful.
At least we'll get a chance to see the characters for at least a few more times.”
“Really? cause I'm in Canada and had all but 6 days of snow this year (each time melting within hours) and weather bounced back and forth between the 40s and 60s, with a few days in the 80s”
William A on May 8, 2012 at 13:42:07
“I must admit I've spent a limited amount of time in Canada, but as with everywhere else there's a huge difference between being above and below the arctic circle. Northern Europe is on the same latitude as Canada, but cerainly seems to me to be milder overall, and especially in the north, because of the gulf stream.”
“At least their whole position is consistent. It irks me that anti-abortion folks cry murder but then say it is okay in certain circumstances like rape of a minor, like those circumstances somehow makes it not murder. Like seriously, is it murder or isn't it... or are anti-abortionists true motives for this battle against women's rights something different and they are just pretending this is the reason because its flashy headline appeal?”
isfturtle on May 8, 2012 at 14:44:10
“They claim the death penalty isn't murder-that's a different circumstance of pre-meditated killing.”
Andrea Blackwell on May 8, 2012 at 13:17:45
“The boomers are dying and retiring, they left us little to raise our kids on and cut the quality of life we can offer them. So yeah, they need our kids to breed them a new tax base and refresh the military.”
CapSen on May 8, 2012 at 12:53:50
“The second, yes. Same people are OK with murdering people who were actually already born :/”
Feb 29, 2012 at 19:16:48
“"F-OFF" was just a figure of speech, a colouring of language in the same vain, as say, those who would say Harper only kisses the USA's butt. We know he literally isn't kissing anyone's butt, just as we know he didn't literally tell Obama to F-OFF. Please tell me you are not this obtuse.”
goleafsgo on Mar 1, 2012 at 12:00:39
“Curiosity, The innuendo of your post...not the literal interpretation, is what I was commenting on. I do not find Harper championing the interests of Canadians...therefore the implication that he is standing up to the President or Americans in general is perhaps...a bit obtuse?”
Feb 29, 2012 at 19:11:49
“Many countries have smaller militaries than Canada. (To name a few per capita: Mexico, New Zealand, Japan. Total size: Australia, UAE, New Zealand.) Canada's in the TOP 15 of military spenders in the world yet only 1/10 the size of USA.
The only reason USA's military spending is almost as much as the ENTIRE WORLD COMBINED is because of USA's own interests. Nothing else. And especially not because of boring Canada.
Canada has never asked for USA's protection. However, it is in USA's best interests to secure its own northern border and its buffer zone aka Canada as the only reason why anyone would attack Canada is to use it as a launching pad to attack the USA. If Canada wasn't next door to the USA, our army would probably be even smaller than it currently is.
We'll continue to be each other's #1 trading partners (which is why USA was given 'first dibs'), but all this protectionism going on in the USA, the USA is making it quite clear that Canada needs to start diversifying who we trade with. And that may include our oil.”
“If only parents that were selfless had kids, all kids would be living in poverty.”
MIMom on Jun 26, 2012 at 23:02:26
“That's not true. If I were selfish, I would stay home and not work. Instead, I go to work to make a home for my family. I work at a stable job that I enjoy, but is in no way what I dreamed of being as a little girl. I had an entry to my dream job once, but I had to give it up because I could not work it (part time to start), a full time job, and still be a good mom. So I gave it up. Had I been selfish, I would have said to h##l with them and worked the 10-20 hours a day required to move up.
When you have children, your life ceases to be your own. Everything you do from that point forward affects that child. Selfish people cannot offer their lives to their children. They offer their children to their lives, which we have all seen can have horrible results.”
salemst on Jun 26, 2012 at 14:50:54
“Parents can be selflessly child oriented and still earn money. There's a difference wanting/trying to place your children's needs first rather than one's own expecting the children adapt to you--specially pre school age. We made our sacrifices, cause we wanted kids and thus wanted to.
A great economy creating middle and upper middle class private sector jobs enabling the affordability of better parenting decisions would also help--which we don't have.”
Jun 24, 2012 at 23:18:35
“Doesn't help that females are taught from a young age that the boy who sticks gum in your hair and pushes you to the ground is the one that "likes" you, that it is just how boys show their 'schoolyard crush'.”
“No one is taking the blame away from the step mother and grandmother. All that was asked was why they didn't respond as if they had responded this could have been prevented. I just hope that they readdress their current procedure manuals to ensure that more calls are taken seriously.”
The predominant perpetrator’s sex differs for abuse and neglect. The majority of neglected children (86%) had female perpetrators. This finding is consistent with the fact that mothers tend to be the primary caregivers and are typically held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in the child’s care. In contrast, children typically had male abusers (62%). The predominance of males as the perpetrators of abuse holds true for each specific abuse category and is most pronounced for sexual abuse, where 87% of sexually abused children had male perpetrators."
Interestingly, the study flips and looks at the stats and likelihood of who is doing the abusing among all abused childrem:
"Among all abused children, those abused by their biological parents were nearly equally likely to have been abused by mothers (51%) as by fathers (54%), but those abused by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners and those abused by other persons were much more commonly abused by males (79% and 74%). "
Also those that are over 35 years old are the worst as well as those that don't work and are alcholics. Personally I believe that if one is going to play the blame game to decide which parent is the most abusive, one must look farther than the genitalia of said parents to get to the problem. calling out moms or dads as the worst isn't doing any kid any favours.”
“Of course more moms kill/abuse than dads. Why? More mothers are the primary caretakers of kids than fathers (can't abuse what you aren't around.) It would be more appropriate to compare groups that are comparable, say % of kids in single mom household vs % of kids in a single dad household.
Not sure exactly what this has to do with the article, but a link would be greatly appreciated. I found tons of people quoting this stat, but no links to the source. Lots of copy and paste it seems, which is annoying as any stat can be played with to suit your needs. However, I have found a more recent collection of stats on the subject, in which I will not only provide the link, but quote verbatum as to not twist anything.
"[When] a biological parent was the perpetrator, the majority of children were maltreated by their mothers (75%), but a sizable percentage were maltreated by their fathers (43%). In contrast, when a nonbiological parent or parent’s partner was the perpetrator, this was typically a male (for 64% of children versus only female for only 48%). The pattern is similar when other persons were perpetrators (75% of children were maltreated by males and only 20% by females).
(1/2 continued next post)”
mdipary2004 on Feb 25, 2012 at 15:13:20
“LOL Your website is a WRA (womens rights advocates) Funded website.
I stated facts from a independant study.
Sounds like you are spreading your propaganda”
octoken on Feb 25, 2012 at 13:35:30
“Not sure of the significance of any of those stats.
Also, why are you getting so worked up over which sex abuses more. Why does it matter? It's wrong either way isn't it? Do you see this as some sort of competition to see which gender is the least reprehensible? Whatever.”