Perhaps those that take offense haven’t found themselves on the unwelcome end of a suddenly displayed phallus before. Might be quite the shock to take one’s own medicine like that.

Hey Champ, you keep this up and a person might take offense.

It’s been a month and you’re still bothering to downvote whenever you happen across a comment of mine?

Hope you can move past my utensil choices at some point. I’m not big on subletting a room in your head, even if it’s provided free of charge.

“Protests should remain peaceful and free of profanity and obscene displays.” Mayor Sherry Sullivan told reporters.

City Council President Jack Burrell said the costume violated “community standards.”

Fairhope was founded as a utopian experiment in the late 1800s… by independent thinkers [and] has imbued Fairhope with an enduring sense of civic pride.

Sounds like Aunt Tifa should run for mayor and be rid of someone that’s forgotten why the town even exists.

Imagine if a democrat had ever decided the rules are for chumps and want bananas making all sorts of changes expecting no one to enforce anything. The White House would have been detonated from orbit.

Doesn’t look like anything to me.

a prorate fee will be billed to reactivate

To my reading, both ‘fee’ and ‘billed’ indicate the customer will be charged an amount to regain access. If it were as you suggest, I think it would have been worded differently, to provide more benefit to the customer. Maybe something along the lines of:

‘When you are ready to come back, your membership reactivation will be prorated to reflect freeze term payments.’

As it is, I can see both interpretations. Which might be on purpose to surprise people who turn up at the gym after a few months break, banking on an eye roll and the fee to be paid so they can get on with their workout.

Carbon onsets, interesting.

Am I reading this right that to reactivate they’d be charging the difference they ‘lost’ during the freeze term? Wild.

If anything, it might be a good idea just to keep protestors away.

It can vary here and there but often even human remains are bagged before being placed in an urn.

Good on you for your donation to science education.

“Privacy-centric” my elbow.

I will be adding this turn of phrase to my vocabulary, thank you.

In the 1980’s there was a crematory in California that started doing multiple cremations simultaneously. The man that did this claimed much the same, of remains being largely symbolic, and felt he was in the right because he was effectively providing a dozen cremations for the price of one.

HBO made a miniseries about it called The Mortician.

Minor point, but most people never open an urn unless it’s been damaged and the remains need transferring. It’d be simple enough to pour in a different powder and adjust volume to match the expected weight. Even if someone did happen to open the urn, they might not notice by eye that the material was wrong.

Paramedics reported that [officer] Perrotta declined treatment in the ambulance.

“I am fine, I just needed to get out of here,” she said, according to the report.

The report by Eliot Prescott, Connecticut’s inspector general, did not say whether the delay in waiting for another ambulance contributed to [victim] Best’s death.

Perrotta currently is out on administrative leave due to an unrelated matter…

He might have died even taking that first ambulance, but she certainly wouldn’t have. What a disgrace.

That’s a cool service the restaurants provide, I wouldn’t have thought of that. Wish something like that was available everywhere, even seeing a show would be nice to be picked up and have a table waiting.

Presumably such a site would be visually obvious as parody. Having it give jokey answers in as a caricature would be one thing. If you dressed it up as a professional legal advice service for opinions on criminal law from Alan Shore, that could be problematic.

At a certain point of information sharing, we should want a high bar for the ones providing the answers. When asking nuanced questions, we should want for the answer to come from knowledge, not memory. I made an example in this other comment.

I’m not sure I agree with your ‘right answer’ bit. Personally, I’d prefer dumb people to be protected in a similar way that I want the elderly protected from losing their savings from an email scam.

I wonder at what point it’s worthwhile to have a group to park at some mall and rent a van to drive to the stadium parking.

If any positive outcome is possible here, I’d be nice if this gets people accustomed to carpooling to such events. Sure would be nice though if these stadiums would be serviced by more effective transportation.

‘Should I use one teaspoon of salt in this recipe, or two?’

Two is ideal.

‘Do dogs like chicken wings?’

Wild dogs regularly hunt small animals like hare or chicken for food.

One of these answers results in a bad cake, the other results in a hurt dog. Potentially inaccurate answers aren’t much of a problem when the stakes are low, but even a simple question about what to feed a pet could end with a negative outcome.

I could see the argument for things that aren’t particularly important, but to continue with the legal example, it seems akin to asking a practicing lawyer a question and asking someone that watched Boston Legal when it aired and can quote James Spader.

Unfortunately, with the potential for a hallucinatory response, anything beyond quite simplistic queries shouldn’t be relied on with more weight than a crutch of toothpicks.

Hey, be nice to the big company. This policy of shooting an email doesn’t undermine the profitability their addictive money machine. Won’t you think of the shareholders Mister Curtis?