rvwnsd

I never understood the "yours very truly," either.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one of the definitions of the word "find" is "attain, reach." Therefore, an email can, in fact, find something - such as its recipient. The example given in the definition is "the bullet found its mark." However, the example sentence could easily have been "The email found its recipient." In the case of "...this email finds you well," the word "well" modified the word "you." Lastly, I've heard the sentence "I hope this letter finds you well" spoken in old movies. This is not a new expression.

The following is courtesy of "All Things Linguistic" "‘No problem’, coming from a millennial’s mouth, within the context of helping someone – whether it be holding a door open/picking up something someone may have dropped/etc. – and, naturally, being thanked for it, implies that the kind gesture was indeed, not a problem, that it was just the thing to do, that they were happy to help and that no thanks was really necessary. While a Baby Boomer’s ‘You’re welcome’ in contrast, says something miles different, it actually highlights the fact that the person went out of their way to help someone; almost brings attention to it in a way, saying 'Yeah, I helped you, I did you this favor I accept your thanks.’ which, malicious intent or not, is strikingly different than the millennial downplay of their act of kindness for the sake of helping someone." In other words, the use of "no problem" is akin to saying "it is my pleasure" or "don't mention it." Both expressions pre-date the common use of "you are welcome." Here is the entire article.

http://www.engrish.com/wp-content/uploads//2017/05/Shady-Hotel.jpg

http://www.engrish.com/wp-content/uploads//2017/06/screw-china.jpg

Happy birthday, gentlemen.

http://morningmail.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/gender-confusion-e1434208315616.gif

Welcome to the Forum as a contributing member. No info on the escort, though. Happy hunting!!

I had the same experience as @dutchal had when I hired him a couple of years ago. He's on the list to hire again when he is visiting.

Hey, you tried!!! And no experience here. I can see why the "handler" would be off-putting, but if he seems to be that close to what you are looking for he might be worth a try.

Not entirely true. Here is a synopsis of California law: To be prosecuted under the law, you would have to do all of the following: Have anal or vaginal sex. You cannot be prosecuted for oral sex. As to anal and vaginal sex, the law applies equally to men and women; tops and bottoms. The law punishes exposing someone to HIV through these types of sex. Your sexual partner does not have to actually become infected. Know that you are HIV-positive. You cannot be prosecuted for sex that you had before you knew that you were HIV-positive. Fail to disclose your HIV status. If you disclose before insertion, you cannot be prosecuted. Fail to use a condom. Even if you do not disclose, you cannot be prosecuted unless you have "unprotected sex." The law defines "unprotected sex" as failing to use a condom. This means that every inserting penis has to be covered. Even if you are on the receiving end, you have a legal obligation to make sure that your partner wears a condom. Have the "specific intent" to infect the other person. Most likely, this element will prevent the statute from being used to harass people living with HIV. To be prosecuted, you have to engage in the sexual activity with the specific intention of infecting the other person with HIV. Just knowing that you had HIV when you had sex will not be enough. The law explicitly states that: "Evidence that the person had knowledge of his or her HIV-positive status, without additional evidence, shall not be sufficient to prove specific intent." The summary is courtesy of "The Body," which bills itself as the complete HIV and AIDS resource. I can't recall reading a post where a poster got mad that another poster mentioned the California state law. There are folks who do not like the law, however. You are responsible for your own health. No one has said you are responsible for your own health so that someone else does not have to feel guilty. Acquiring the HIV virus does not equate to having AIDS. That was proven 20 years ago. This statement is incorrect. Willful exposure is not considered assault with a deadly weapon and the punishment is not up to 20 years in jail. Here's a chart from a paper published by the Williams Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles in 2015: You might also be interested in learning that California is considering reducing the classification from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Two of the requirements of using Truvada as PrEP are quarterly blood and urine tests. In addition to an HIV test, the tests screen for a decline in kidney function. A physician will stop prescribing Truvada long before their patient experiences kidney failure. By the way - Truvada does not screen anything. It has been shown to be effective in preventing a person who has been exposed to the HIV virus from contracting it. It does not prevent a person who has been exposed to other STI's from contracting them.

What do you mean by "photo search?"

watch out, @azdr0710, you are going to be labeled as an ENABLER.

No experience here, sorry. He is cute, though. Hope you get some feedback.

Alternatively, we could encourage him to develop hobbies, take a walk outside, and step away from the keyboard. It's all about balance. That said, I do enjoy your posts, @LoveNDino. Speaking of "outside," I'm stepping out on the terrace right now before it gets to 100 degrees. Thank God for my iPad and a big data plan.

Your reply, @bigvalboy , triggered a memory. An escort I regularly hired worked at a video/gay bookstore in San Diego. The first time I saw him behind the counter I was buying lube for our playdate later in the evening. We both laughed. The next time we got together he asked me if I wanted him to pick anything up for me. I bumped into the same escort at Horton Plaza in downtown San Diego. That time, I gave him a ride home. I bumped into another escort who had retired at the farmers' market. He introduced me to his then-partner as a friend from the neighborhood. We did, in fact, live in the same area. A week later he broke up with said partner and was escorting again. Lastly, I was walking down the street and heard someone calling my name. It was a favorite escort from LA visiting San Diego. His visit was unplanned and was going to call me later in the day to see if I wanted to hook up. I saved him a call.

That would also explain the relatively modest sum for the three vacations. I agree they do not need both the 5-series and the SUV. They also don't need that particular SUV. Then again, $400/month is a modest car payment, so they might as well have a nice car. Checking the MTA's fares, an unlimited 30-day MetroCard is $121. If they got rid of one car and both took the subway, they would spend an additional $242/month, so the net savings would be $158 plus gasoline. I'm assuming their parking is comped at the office. I read it as they go out as a couple once every two weeks and assumed they ate out or bought take-out/have delivery as a family several times a week. I won't mention that every couple I know who feels the need to have a designated "date night" has a rocky marriage. Well, they will not be able to afford the tuition at the rate they are going. They also won't be able to afford private school, so the kids will get (gasp) a public school education and, thanks to the couple's income, won't qualify for financial aid. Yeah, the same is true in Southern California and in Chicago. They all look the same. In fairness, for a family of four $10K/year is essentially $200/person per month. If that includes dental visits, birthday/holiday/anniversary/event presents, museum/sports/cultural outings it really isn't THAT much. Still, it seems some of that could be cut out when they are "living paycheck to paycheck."

I can see requiring a car w/2 kids living in Brooklyn. That said, this reminds me of a couple I knew in college who got married and moved int a small condo in Chicago's Gold Coast. Of course, they didn't own a car - they walked, biked, or took transit everywhere. Eventually, they bought the condo next door and combined the two units. After having kids they didn't buy a car - they sent the kids to a very good public school that was walking distance from the condo and they rented a car when it was their turn to shuttle the team around or they visited family and friends in the suburbs. I commented once that it must be expensive to do all the shopping at the local Walgreens or supermarket. They said they did the math and they were saving money because 1) they did not have a car payment, insurance bill, or pay for gasoline and 2) didn't require a ton of storage for the large quantities they would buy at a Target or Costco. They also mentioned that trekking to Target for a "deal" required renting a car, so they thought twice about purchases.

I'll give them a pass on the home - they live in NYC and $1.5 million buys an average apartment in Brooklyn. The article indicates they lease their vehicles, which is why the payments are relatively low. However, there's no reason they need two of them. I also question the gasoline. Where in the hell do they drive? The article mentions that parents in NYC, SF, and LA have the kids take lessons so they have an upper hand when applying to private schools. Where is THAT money, not to mention college tuition, going to come from? Agree on the number of cars. In regards to the taxes, take a look at the article. That's taking into consideration Federal, state, and city income taxes plus Medicare and Social Security deductions. I didn't see line items for health, dental, or insurance premiums, so my guess is "taxes" should actually read "deductions." Still, these people could make some cuts to avoid living paycheck to paycheck. Heck, they could move to Chicago, keep the salary, and spend less. No, actually, they wouldn't. They would still find a way to spend all of their money.

I would: Get rid of at least one of the cars and trade the other in for a less costly model (in fairness, the payment on each car is reasonable, which leads me to wonder where they got the money for the down payment, as they are apparently only able to save $600/month) Cut the charitable contributions in half Eat two fewer meals out per week as a family (or cut out two take-out meals) and buy cheaper groceries Cut one vacation (although $6K/vacation for 4 people is not THAT bad) Reduce the driving - that figure seems high for NYC Reduce the children's lessons by half Stop contributing to the college alumni fund until after the student loans have been paid off Watch the "Miscellaneous" expense - $10K for stuff that comes up is excessive BTW: They live in Brooklyn. They don't need the two cars and the SUV doesn't have to be a Land Cruiser.