Response letter to advertising complaint

We made a pact that we will not talk about our relationship in public or the internet, and I have kept my promise.
You have not, you have strewn all our personal business and drama all over reddit and I do not appreciate that.
All you had to do was sincerely apologise for your actions and make amends. You did not do that at all. Instead, you used our relationship as an episode of borderline drama to fuel your self-piteous letters, trying to garner sympathy for something you did wrong to me.
It's not that you weren't enough, or that I didn't love you enough. What broke us up was that you have no respect for me, and you showed it in your words and your actions and I will not tolerate that.
So, please, keep on writing sad letters making it seem as if I had abandoned and ghosted you, when it was really you, disrespecting me and not coming to terms with the responsibility of your actions.
You have yet to make an authentic apology to me, and I suspect perhaps you never will. And it will seal the end of our friendship.
I wish you well, but I will not accept anyone in my life who does not lift me up, inspire me nor respect me in the same way.
All you do with your anonymous letters of self-pity is disgust me. I don't care for your histrionic displays of emotion, I only wanted to know if you truly cared about me, and it's clear you don't because you rather write your tales of sorrow to the internet for pity points than actually talk to me and tell me that you're truly sorry.

Just wanted to thank everyone on here for all the insight. This last weekend my TN application was approved under the accounting profession. My case was fairly open and shut so there really wasn’t anything I was concerned about. The documents I brought to the border were: Passport, Support letter drafted by the company’s lawyer, Employment contract (which was really an extension of the support letter as it had all the position details on it other than duties), my accounting designation (original) and my Resume. The position itself was a “Staff accountant” position. The CBP officer didn’t even want my resume and gave it back to me right away. They first had me write down all my duties and responsibilities on a piece of paper which also allocated certain percentage of time spent in those categories. Then once I completed that I was sent over to a different officer who asked me to explain ‘What my day looks like in my own words’. I had prepared for this so I gave him 6-7 bullet points and brief explanations. They had me sit down for about 30 minutes after that and stamped me through and had me pay the $56.
I don’t suggest going on a weekend if possible (it wasn’t possible for me because I started work on monday and I was in Europe the week before). At first when I was there on the sunday, I could sense their agitation with me being there on a sunday rather than on a weekday (it also didn’t help it was a long weekend). I even overheard the two officers talking amongst themselves while I was sitting down if they should just reject me and have me come back on a weekday. I feel if my case wasn’t so open and shut (accounting profession, staff accountant job, accountant designation) they would have rejected me for this reason.
My support letter did not have wet ink signature and also did not have a company phone number on it. (I wouldn’t suggest doing this as I’m sure they could have easily rejected me on this basis).
Anyway, thank you again everyone and goodluck!

After being in a relationship with two pwBPD (yes I know lol), one relationship lasting two years and the other lasting a month, and reading through this sub, I notice a lot of pwBPD using therapy speak as a way to justify their abusive/wrong behavior. I think there is a time and place for “therapy speak”.. and that is AT THERAPY. They have also used their therapist as a way to escape accountability— example being “Oh my therapist said you need to ___” etc.
In my recent month of dating my exBpd, the final argument was when I didn’t heart her instagram story one time, after a build up of arguments over her not liking an inside joke we both have, and her being upset for me calling out her talking about her exes too much, and many other things. Im not sure what she wanted from the conversation (its in my post history) but I wasnt validating her enough and she said it was degrading.
Important context: I am autistic. She knows this and honestly brought it up DAILY. As an autistic person (diagnosed last year), being bombarded with long, emotionally charged paragraphs is overwhelming and draining.
My ex would romanticize? me being autistic, saying its “stoic and mysterious”.. but never held actual space for the things I experience and when I act authentically autistic she says i am not communicating well or Im being like a “cold vault”. Even though she made my autism my entire identity, as she did with her adhd and bpd.
I was expected daily to essentially "mind-read" and manage her long emotional outbursts, that were disguised in a “mature” way, using therapy speak, written like a letter to H.R, overuse of the words “boundaries” and “anxious/avoidant attatchment” , Me not wanting to deeply delve into a wall of texts back and forth for days on end about how me forgetting to like her story meant to her that i was “stonewalling” and “avoiding” and “not communicating” and she “doesnt deserve this treatment”. I communicated quite clearly and shortly while sticking to my boundaries and this upset her. She’d say “But you’re so emotionally intelligent, why arent you communicating with me?”
People who aren't truly committed to growth and healing honestly use these words /terms as a smokescreen to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. It's a lot easier to say that you're "all about growth and healing and communication" than it is to actually do the hard work of examining your own behavior and making meaningful changes and having empathy for others. She also was not in therapy so its strange. My ex often asked me to “think for her” and work her through HER emotions like a therapist, and if i declined I was “stone walling”
Ive noticed this epidemic not just in bpd relationships but its the point where misuse/abuse of terms like “boundaries, attachment style,gaslighting,” and very long messages airing out your entire stream of consciousness to your partner has caused me an extreme burn out and become a bit of a red flag to me.
Im interested in anyone else’s experiences with this. Also if anyone else had to deeply delve into deep talks with them daily?

I ordered a "new sealed" Xbox Series X, but the seals were cut with different masking tape applied to reseal. The inside of the Xbox looks brand new, and this was the sellers response:
"Hi!
Really sorry i have verified with the warehouse. We had one unit that had been opened to verify content. The tapes were slit and the box opened but the xbox itself and its accessories were not even taken out. It was mixed up with the other ones. Sorry for this we can offer you a 25$ refund since it was not fully as advertised. You are safe to open and use the device as it is exactly the same device same condition as all the other ones we had for sale.
Thank you!"
What would you all do?

So this happened to me a couple of years ago.
I went to Loblaws to buy some steaks, since I did like the quality of their meats in the butchers section. Grabbed a couple of steaks, and a few other items for some sides. All in all, I spent maybe $80-$90, for one bag of groceries, to make a nice steak dinner.
Went to a checkout line with a cashier, paid, and made my way to the exit.
As I was leaving, in the foyer, apparently someone says something to me. I have no idea someone is talking to me. Those entances are big and the person is kinda off to the side. They bark at me now, loudly and rudely, and I realise this person is talking to me. It's an employee. They want to see my receipt. They ask if I used self checkout, still in a very rude tone. I bark back "No! I went to a cashier!" I'm pretty annoyed at this point.
She looks over my receipt and the contents of my bag, is satisfied and lets me go.
WTF. To say I was pissed off was an understatement, as evidenced by the fact that I'm writing about it two years later lol.
First of all, the employee was soooo rude. Second, this wasn't a normal practice at Loblaws. It had never happened to me before (like at Costco) so I wasn't expecting it or noticing her speaking to me. Third, she was stationed off to the side, not in a direct area where she would be able to successfully cut people off, and handle her business without confusion. And lastly, it's just not a nice feeling to be spoken to rudely and to be treated like a criminal after spending almost $100 on a bag of groceries.
When I got home, I wrote them a complaint letter. Never heard back, not even a follow up. So now that the boycott is here, I'm all for it! I started mine 2 years ago. Glad more and more people are on board now!

Synopsis:
Carlos was an ordinary software engineer on Earth, up until he died and found himself in a fantasy world of dungeons, magic, and adventure. This new world offers many fascinating possibilities, but it's unfortunate that the skills he spent much of his life developing will be useless because they don't have computers.
Wait, why does this spell incantation read like a computer program's source code? Magic is programming?
___
<< First < Previous Next > (RR) or Next > (Patreon)
"So, in short, the most stuck-up bully of my life is now begging for our help to fulfill his greatest dream, because we've happened to become his only remotely realistic hope of achieving it. Do I have that right?"
Carlos looked up from his plate of succulent roasted meats and vegetables, all covered generously with a rich gravy, and raised an eyebrow at Amber. They were in Mayor Stelras's personal dining room, enjoying the service of his personal chef. "You know you do. You've read the letter yourself, what, a dozen times now?"
Amber set the letter aside yet again and took another bite of her own lunch. "Yeah, I know. It's just…" She shook her head and chuckled. "Out of all the things that happened the last few weeks, this one is somehow the hardest for me to believe is real. It's ridiculous. I know it's ridiculous. I've personally met and spoken with royalty! Kindar should be nothing compared to that! But, somehow… This is hitting me harder than anything."
Carlos nodded calmly. "Makes sense to me. The presence of royalty is completely new to you. It's huge and important, and far beyond anything you ever expected might happen, but the only thing you've experienced before that's different is its absence. You don't have any memories in the back of your mind telling you 'that's not how this is supposed to work.' For Kindar, you have a lifetime of memories telling you that he's more powerful and better supported than you are, and that you're mostly helpless against his bullying. Now that you're the one in power, and he's the one helpless against you, that's not just new, but contradicts a lot of your past experiences. Some part of you in the back of your mind is having difficulty reconciling the contradiction; it's like you have a subconscious voice shouting 'that's wrong; it's not how this is supposed to work!' For meeting Princess Lornera, that voice is only confused and surprised, not feeling like something's wrong."
"Hmm." Amber cocked her head and paused. She looked down and idly speared another forkful of tender steak. She made a few more contemplative sounds as she chewed and swallowed. "That makes some weird kind of sense. I think." She shook her head. "How did you know that? I never would have figured it out."
Carlos chuckled. "Don't feel bad about it. Not many people would ever figure out that kind of thing about how human minds work without being taught. I certainly didn't. My dad's a therapist, and he taught me a lot."
Amber blinked, then blinked again. "I have never heard of that profession before. In fact, I think it doesn't exist here."
Carlos realized on reflection that "therapist" hadn't translated. There was no word for it in Ganler, the native language here. "Huh. … I hadn't thought about it, but I'm not surprised. It took a long time for people where I grew up to realize that kind of thing can be important. Or maybe the hard part was realizing that it takes education and training to do it well."
"Ah."
They ate mostly in silence for a while, occasionally humming in thoughtful consideration while they chewed. Eventually Amber was leaning on her elbow, just watching as Carlos scraped up a few last bits of gravy from his plate. She stared distantly at nothing. "Hmm… You know, I'm tempted to actually accept, just so I can rub his face in how I succeeded better at his own greatest ambition than he ever will."
"Hmm? Oh right, Kindar." Carlos chuckled. "I imagine a few sessions of smugly condescending to him would be rather cathartic revenge for you. Would it be worth the downside of helping him actually achieve his ambition, at least to a minor degree, though? I'm sure that if Darmelkon had any other viable options for helping his son with this, he would have taken care of it years ago. If we refuse, we'll be denying Kindar from achieving his ambition at all. Wouldn't that be better revenge?"
"Logically, yeah, that makes sense. But it just doesn't feel satisfying to me." Amber took a sip of water and pushed her empty plate away. "I want to show him how badly we outclass him now. I want to see his face when he realizes that he will never measure up to the 'annoying stupid girl' he used to tease."
Carlos put his hands together, resting his elbows on the table, and rested his chin on his hands as he looked at Amber. "Not to mention how much money Darmelkon will pay us for doing it." His voice was calm and level.
Amber nodded quickly. "Yes, that too."
"You realize we're already rich now, right? Receiving taxes, and all that."
Amber threw her head back laughed uproariously. When her laughter finally tapered off, she leaned forward and looked Carlos in the eyes. "You may have heard that Darmelkon is rich, but you clearly don't understand how filthy rich he really is. Yes, I was shocked when he offered a hundred gold bounty for finding us back before we became nobles, but that was only because I didn't know why he considered us valuable. For this? For helping his son achieve his otherwise impossible greatest desire? A price in platinum would be cheap! I would bet that he'll pay in mythril and be glad about it."
"Hmm." Carlos quickly did the math in his head. 100 gold was roughly equivalent in value here to a million dollars on Earth, and is also equal to 1 platinum. So 1 million dollars per platinum. 100 platinum is 1 mythril. So each mythril coin is around the same order of magnitude value as 100 million dollars. Just 10 mythril to match a billion dollars. "Okay, that's more than I thought. So he's a major business tycoon? What the hell is he doing living in a backwater in the middle of nowhere like Erlen?"
Amber shrugged. "I have no idea. Ask him."
Carlos stared for a moment and snorted. "I suppose it doesn't matter." He took a deep breath. "Alright, I guess we're at least seriously considering it after all. So, let's break it down, pros and cons. Pros: personal satisfaction for you, Darmelkon loses any basis for claiming we still owe him a favor, and we get a ridiculous amount of money. Cons: Kindar becomes a noble. Also, we have to put up with him being here for a while. Anything else?"
"Another one for pros: Even with the favor and Darmelkon paying so much, Kindar himself will personally owe us, bigtime." Amber grinned. "His house will just about be permanent vassals in service to us."
Carlos hesitated, then frowned. "… Just how much, and how long, do you intend to keep paying him back for how he treated you?"
Amber raised an eyebrow and shrugged. "…Until I get tired of it? I don't know."
"I'm all for giving him a well-deserved comeuppance, turning the tables, and giving him a taste of his own medicine to teach him a lesson. But I will not countenance continuing to humiliate and abuse him long term!" Carlos shook his head emphatically. "If we do that, we would be bullies just as bad as he was. I hate bullies, and I refuse to be one."
Amber slowly lowered her eyes, blushed, and nodded shyly. "I… You're right. That is not the kind of person I want to be. I'm sorry for suggesting it."
Carlos leaned forward and reached out to gently put his right hand on top of her hands. "It's okay. What's important is that you recognize your mistakes, learn from them, and make yourself a better person. My parents taught me that very, very thoroughly."
"Yeah." Amber sighed and shook herself. "Thanks. I'll try to remember that. And… Should we just call off the whole idea?"
"Only if you truly want to." Carlos squeezed her hands gently. "If you can get some satisfaction without taking it too far, then that's completely okay, and you were right that there are serious benefits to it. Even having him as a vassal house, as long as we treat him reasonably. Though… Hmm." He frowned. "There has to be a reason why strong noble houses aren't raising up new vassal nobles all the time, right? It's not all that hard to make a noble soul plan if you know the requirements details."
"I suppose. Lorvan probably knows the reason."
Carlos nodded. "Yeah. I feel like he might just ask if we can figure it out ourselves, like he did about nobles keeping mana wellsprings, though…" He shrugged. "I'm sure Darmelkon knows too, and he wouldn't have asked if the Crown forbids it, or anything like that. He's ambitious and ruthless, not stupid. We should ask, certainly, but I expect any consequences we might have overlooked will be manageable. As I see it, the core question is just…" Carlos reached his other hand forward, firmly clasped and lifted both of Amber's hands, and looked her in the eyes. "Amber, what do you want to do with this?"
Amber stared back for a moment, then averted her gaze. "Don't you have an opinion about this too? Why are you only asking me?"
"Of course I have an opinion, but all he did to me was loan me a sword in a dungeon and then act rude and arrogant when he demanded it back afterward. You are the one who grew up being bullied by him. How to treat him matters far more to you than it possibly could to me." Carlos squeezed Amber's hands reassuringly. "Amber, please, look at me." He waited, and after a few seconds Amber hesitantly turned her head to face him directly again. "My opinion on this is that I want our response to be something that you will be content and happy with. All other relevant considerations that I can think of are less important than that."
Amber stared and slowly nodded. "I… Thank you." She squeezed Carlos's hands back and awkwardly extracted her hands from his grip so she could lean forward and rest her head on them, propped up by her elbows on the table. "I think… I do want to accept, but maybe with some conditions. I still want to show him up in person and see his reaction. Part of me still feels afraid of him, and I want to prove to myself that he doesn't have the power to threaten me anymore. That seems like something your 'therapists' would say something about. Would they say it's a good idea? Do you know?"
Carlos nodded. "Yes, absolutely. Standing up to something you used to fear is a great way to resolve residual fear of it that lingers in your mind."
"Then, yeah. I want to do that, and I do still want to get some payback." Amber hesitated. "But if I start bullying people like he did, I'd start hating myself as soon as I realize it. So, no bullying. And that goes for Kindar too. If he can't learn to stop being a bully, then he doesn't deserve what he wants. Let's give him a chance. Make our conditions clear, and demand partial payment up front, but give him an opportunity to earn our help."
"That sounds fair." Carlos cocked his head and frowned in thought. "Having him with us may require adjusting some of our plans. … Actually, we're overdue for making certain plans in the first place. I got a bit too carried away with my excitement over all the spell keywords we can learn now. Sorry."
Amber grinned. "Have you forgotten that I told you I'm well known for always having a plan? What do you think I've been doing the past two days?"
Carlos raised an eyebrow, then grinned back at her. "Oh really? Let's see what you've got!"
<< First < Previous Next > (RR) or Next > (Patreon)
Royal Road Patreon Discord
Royal Road and free Patreon posts are 1 chapter ahead.
Please rate the story on Royal Road!
Thank you to all my new patrons!
Special thanks to my Mythril patrons Scott Snyder and Barbar!
Patreon has 5+ advance chapters if you want to read more.

Hey guys so I am a first year music teacher in a tier 1 district. I currently move between 3 schools which seems like a lot (and it is) but hasn’t been too difficult for me to handle because of the way my schedule is.
That being said at one of my schools I have had constant issues with my space. I wasn’t allowed to put anything up because they needed to use my bulletin boards in my room. My space was constantly, for lack of a better term, pimped out and in some cases even when I was scheduled to be there I was pushed out. I would come to school some days with my room looking destroyed, garbage all over, chairs moved around and out of my usual arch, my speakers knocked over and chords (black and red that link them together) torn out, and I’ve gone through 20+ dry erase markers. I’ve been told it is my responsibility that this is happening because I should be locking my things up and overall it has been extremely frustrating with multiple documented emails and complaints to principal met with nothing.
I was just told in passing that next year I will not even have a classroom at all and will need to do music from a cart for the whole year. This year I teach 5th grade next year I’ll be teaching K4 at this school.
40 minutes of PK music 5 days a week with no classroom. Even if you aren’t a music teacher let that sink in.
Being a first year teacher I’m trying to navigate how to actual put my foot down with situations exactly like this and really could use some advice.
Only 5.5 more days for me let’s see if I make it.

1. Courtesans and the Crown: I will be playing M! I am also open to potentially playing a MxM version. (1530s) Benjamin, the illegitimate son of a King, lives a life of luxury without any of the consequences that come with royal blood. He indulges in fine clothing, gambling and is a frequent patron of brothels. At sixteen, he met a courtesan named Antonia, who was five years his senior. Unlike the other women he had encountered, Antonia was beautiful, kind, and captured his heart. While they both share a deep love for each other, they face their own challenges. Benjamin is still learning the ways of the court at the age of eighteen, while Antonia holds a great deal of influence over him due to her life experience. From encouraging him to invite her to tea to spite his royal parentage and even convincing him to petition for legitimation to take his sister's throne, she is ready to shake things up, disguising their power-hungry nature as love. What started as a quiet and humble relationship has now turned them into vicious antagonists towards themselves and others, but their love for each other remains strong. Even though the character's name is Antonia, feel free to create your own character with a courtesan theme. I even encourage it!!!
2. Our Father, who art in Heaven: I can play M or F! (1450s) Through a combination of extortion, torture, and occasional bribery, Pope Castello has ascended to the Papal throne. Despite his vow of celibacy, his illegitimate offspring roam freely in the town, behaving as though they were the offspring of a monarch. His son, in particular, plowing through any woman with a pulse, loses vast sums of money gambling, and harbors his own dark secrets. Meanwhile, his father strives to elevate him to the rank of cardinal. However, what will happen when his son encounters the same fate as his father? Will he fall in love with a noblewoman and violate his church oath? This woman has her own secrets and a father who is eager to marry her off to the wealthiest suitor available. The resulting whirlwind will leave blood on the floor and lipstick stains on collars, reminiscent of The Borgias, but without the incestuous undertones.
3. Of course, Your Majesty: I will be playing M! (1500s) Your protagonist is the eldest child of a powerful monarch, destined to become the next Queen. During her childhood, she formed a close bond with the son of a Lord who was a bit older than her. As they grew up, their feelings for each other became more than just friendship, prompting them to explore a romantic relationship. However, it is the heavily religious 1500s, and fearing that their relationship would compromise her purity and jeopardize her chances of marrying another royal, the Lord's son was sent away to a chateau. Despite the distance, they kept in touch through letters and other means. But, a dramatic shift in the court's dynamics has brought him back, much to the chagrin of your character's father. He is willing to disrupt the status quo for the sake of love and occasionally for his own gain.
4. The Lost Princess: I will be playing F! (1480s-1520s) Princess Margery was adored by her subjects and set to ascend the throne one day. However, her fate changed drastically when, at the tender age of four, her carriage was attacked by bandits. In a desperate bid to survive, Margery pretended to be dead in the frigid snow of the forest. She wasn't certain what happened next, but she eventually found herself in the care of two kind-hearted parents who renamed her Elizabeth and raised her as their own daughter. As Elizabeth came of age, she began searching for potential suitors. But what happens when a young man uncovers her true identity? How does she make her way back to the castle, and what challenges await her upon her return? Most importantly, where do you fit into this tangled web of intrigue and deception?
5. For Our Kingdoms: I am open to playing M or F! (1530s) An arranged marriage between a prince and princess from neighboring kingdoms looms on the horizon. Is she a timid princess, suddenly thrust into the role of heir apparent, seeking a partner to bolster her claim to the throne? Or is she merely a commodity being sold off to the highest bidder? Regardless, what happens when two royals who are less-than-enthusiastic about the arrangement are forced to wed for the betterment of their kingdoms? With an unkind and brash prince making every quip in the book as he rises to the throne, she must find a way to make her marriage work. Will they find common ground, or will they be at each other's throats? Only time will tell.
6. Shadow in Stage Lights:I will be playing M! I am also open to potentially playing a MxM version. (Post-WWII 1940s) In the smoky haze of post-war Hollywood, where dreams are traded like currency and the past casts long shadows, Jack Turner returns from the frontlines of battle a shattered man. Once hailed as a literary luminary, he now struggles to find his place in a world that has moved on without him, haunted by memories he can neither escape nor forget. Enter your character, a radiant starlet whose ascent to fame is as swift as it is dazzling. Cast as the lead in Jack's latest play, she embodies the very essence of the character he once envisioned, igniting the stage with a brilliance that eclipses his own. But as the spotlight shines ever brighter on YC, Jack finds himself consumed by a bitter resentment, his heart seething with anger at the injustice of it all. In a world where shadows lurk behind every smile and fame is but a fleeting illusion, Jack and YC must navigate the treacherous waters of love and ambition, forging a path forward that leads them out of the darkness and into the light.
7. The West was Wilder: I will be playing M or F! (1830s) A young man is a moonshiner and owner of a notorious saloon in a small frontier town. With a reputation for brewing the finest illegal whiskey in the region, he walks a fine line between outlaw and respected member of the community. Meanwhile, a young lass is new to town and is seeking change. She has a tough exterior, but there is a vulnerability that draws folks in. As their paths cross in the dusty streets and dimly lit saloons of the Wild West, sparks fly between them. Whether it's a fiery confrontation over a poker game gone wrong or a chance encounter in the dead of night, their chemistry is undeniable. But with danger lurking around every corner and secrets waiting to be uncovered, their burgeoning romance is anything but smooth sailing.
8. Underneath the Bald Cypress: I will be playing F! (1930s) Amidst the sultry streets of New Orleans, the daughter of a wealthy sugar cane baron, finds herself torn between societal expectations and her own desires. Engaged to a controlling man of her father’s choosing, she longs for true love. Her path collides with your character, a jazz singer, a man of color, or something else entirely, sparking a forbidden romance that defies family secrets. As their love blossoms amidst the city's vibrant nightlife, she must choose between the safety of convention and the allure of a life filled with passion and uncertainty, where forbidden love and hidden truths threaten to unravel the world she knows.
9. Revolution or Run: I will be playing F! (Fallout Fandom) In Vault 47, life appears idyllic, with its inhabitants blissfully unaware of the horrors unfolding beneath the sterile corridors. Your character, recently assigned to a coveted scientist position, stumbles upon a hidden lab deep within the vault, where ghastly experiments are conducted on unsuspecting fellow dwellers. Amidst it all, your character finds help in a resourceful maintenance worker with a knack for uncovering secrets. With the weight of responsibility heavy on their shoulders, they must navigate a treacherous path, torn between loyalty to their community and the pursuit of justice.As tensions escalate within the vault, they must decide whether to ignite the flames of rebellion from within or to venture into the unforgiving wasteland beyond the vault's walls.
Linked here is my writing sample and lore explanation.
I am also open to sending a master list of my current OCs with their vague descriptions!
When you DM me, please send me the answers to these questions!

1. What is your name and pronouns?
2. What RP are you interested in?
3. Are you comfortable playing on Discord?
4. What gender are you interested in playing? (for scenarios 2, 5, and 7 only!)
5. What are your hard boundaries for writing? (i.e. unwilling to write gore/abuse/etc)
6. What is your biggest roleplay pet peeve?
7. What is your paragraph min/max?
8. What is the most important thing to you in RP?
9. Are time zones important to you? If so, what is yours?
10. Is ooc essential to you?
11. Are you okay with a fade-to-black romance style?
12. What is your typical romance speed? Slow/Medium/Fast Burn?

I will answer these questions back! Thanks for reading!

Part Two: The Solitude of This Fire
Chapter 6
Location: Hust Forge. Hust Henarald's conference room
POV: Kellaras
After making Kellaras wait some days, Hust Henarald finally grants him an audience and says "One day, I will be a child again". These words seem to be nonsense to Kellaras. While waiting for his audience he noticed the Hust Forge never stops working. Henarald goes on to say we all war with two parts of ourselves and both make weapons from anything at hand. Henarald asks Kellaras if Anomander simply wants a sword or to join the Hust Legion. He doesn't think Urusander's Legion would like that very much. Kellaras says he knows the request of a sword is unusual at this time. Henarald responds by saying others will see it as political. Perhaps even a secret allegiance. Kellaras is put off balance by Henarald's pragmatic responses and then shifting into ending each with "One day I will be a child again." Henarald asks for specs and Kellaras says Anomander wants the sword to be silent. Henarald responds by asking if he would prefer a gagged weapon and if Anomander will hide it's origin. Kellaras tells Henarald that Anomander wants his swords spine to be quenched in the purity of Darkness itself. Henarald muses on power and says those with the most power have the greatest fear and that means power is meaningless and delusional. Kellaras counters that the Forulkan would have enslaved the Tiste with their power had they won, but they lost to the power of the Tiste. Henarald responds, "A triumph in solitude makes a hollow sound, and to every glory proclaimed the heavens make no answer".
Kellaras reiterates that his master requests a sword. Henarald responds "To take the blood of Darkness". Kellaras is surprised by this as Mother Dark is not Azathanai. Henarald asks how she feeds her power and if now that Anomander knows the secret of House Hust if he will use it for political gain. Kellaras says his Lord is the ultimate secret keeper. Henarald agrees to forge Anomander's sword, but requires that he be present at the quenching of it by darkness to witness if it is blood Mother Dark uses. Kellaras tells him he won't be able to see anything and leaves the chamber trembling mostly upset by Henarald's repeated assertions that he will return to childhood.
Kellaras goes to the main hall where there is feast taking place. He pushes aside his doubts and is proud that he got Henarald's agreement to make the sword. He searches out Galar Baras and finds him leaning against a pillar staring at a woman that had just entered. Kellaras sees her see Galar Baras and watches her stiffen. The woman is Toras Redone. Kellaras notes that even grimed from hard travel she is beautiful and makes his way to Galar. Galar asks if Henarald spoke to Kellaras of childhood. Kellaras says yes, but does not understand. Kellaras invites Galar to join a table and Galar accepts though he tells him he can't drink. Galar tells the captain that the childhood thing troubles them all. Kellaras asks him to call him by his name and not rank. Galar says that Henarald claims that he is losing his recent memories, but no one can see any evidence of this. Galar tells Kellaras of a sickness called Loss of Iron that afflicts smiths. Kellaras tells Galar that in his meeting Henarald was sharp and focused. No evidence of a crumbling mind. Galar asks if he will tell Anomander of this. Galar says it has no bearing on the creation of the sword and says his master would likely just say returning to childhood isn't a bad idea.
POV: Galar Baras
Kellaras gets drunk and stumbles off and now Galar has to be alone with his thoughts and heartache at the presence of Toras Redone. She was still holding court at one of the tables and after a while she shuffles over to him. She comments on her husband transferring as far away as he could. She tells Galar that he is a pariah in the citadel. That people think him arrogant and dismissive. She knows that's not him, so is puzzled. She says he should have sex with the priestesses. That celibacy is not for soldiers. He should feed his appetites. Galar responds by asking if she is well fed. The barb slides off of her and she says well enough. She says she is certain that her husband stays true to her and that leads her to infidelity. Galar does not understand this. She changes the subject and says she has missed him. She tells him to go to bed, but he knows he won't be alone for long. He compares himself to Toras Redone's husband, Calat Hustain, knowing that both spend their nights alone, "because it was in their nature to choose it: to remain alone in the absence of love"
Location: Neret Sorr
POV: Kadaspala
With Osserc and Hunn Raal gone, Kadaspala is having a more enjoyable time having dinners with Urusander. The painting however was still irritating to him. He doubts anyone will see below the surface of his painting. He is finished and will leave in the morning. "There is but one god, and its name is beauty. There is but one kind of worship, and that is love. There is for us but one world, and we have scarred it beyond recognition". Kadaspala now truly sees Urusander and is terrified. Urusander asks him why he chose to accept this request. Kadaspala says he's denied hundreds, but if anyone can prevent a civil war, it's the man in the portrait. Although his thoughts imply that that may not be the same man standing before him.
Location: House Enes lands
POV: Cryl Durav
On his short self-imposed exile from the wedding preparations, Kryl finds the antlers of a long dead Eckalla. A symbol of triumph. Cryl thinks the triumph is hollow. Hunting for food was once a necessity, but that necessity bred traditions that resulted in the extinction of this animal. Thinking back on his youth he dreamt of discovering a new world free of Tiste where he could become prey and know the thrill of fear. Enesdia was also present in these fantasies. He thinks, "He had been trained for war just as he had been taught how to hunt and how to slay, and these were deemed necessary skills in preparation for adulthood. How sad was that?".
His horse notices some movement and he sees a troop of Tiste riders approaching. This makes no sense as there is no reason for them to come here on there way to somewhere else. Cryl rides to meet them and sees that they lead a score of Jheleck children. There were no chains. The captain of the company asks why Cryl is out this far and Cryl tells him who he is. The captain breaks in and says Cryl is probably fleeing the frenzy of the coming marriage. The captain introduces himself as Scara Bandaris and says there are two reasons for him being here, one trying to figure out what to do with the Jheleck hostages and two to attend the wedding. Cryl agrees to escort them all to house Enes. Scara perceptively guesses that Cryl is out here because he is in love with Enesdia. He says he will say no more on the subject.
There are 25 Jheleck children. Scara says they will raise wolves in these children. Cryl says he's heard they are more like hounds. Scara says hostage taking may come back to bite them. Scara laughs at his own joke and forces a smile onto Cryl's face. Cryl feels a little better.
Location: House Enes
POV: Enesdia
Enesdia is upset that Cryl has been gone for a few days. She searches out her father and overdramatically asks him why they are shirking their responsibility to their hostage. She says, "For all you know he could be lying at the bottom of a well, legs shattered and dying of thirst" Jaen responds "Dying of thirst in a well?" he tells her he sent him on a search for Eckalla. She says that's a hopeless quest. Jaen says Cryl's familiar with those. Enesdia asks what he means. Jaen responds that his time with House Enes is ending. It has only now struck Enesdia that her companion will not be at her side much longer. Enesdia laments the fact that Cryl's family has only one occupation. He will be a soldier like his only living brother, Spinnock. She muses that she could ask Andarist to offer Cryl a commission in the citadel, far away from fighting. Cryl would never know, but he would be safe.
Location: House Drukorlas
POV: Orfantal
Orfantal is standing near the estate road with Wreneck, a stable boy that used to be his friend. They are also standing near an old nag horse. They have been standing for some time. They are being circled by 3 feral dogs that have smelled the food that Orfantal carries. Orfantal wished he knew why Wreneck stopped being his friend, but it seemed impossible to ask now. Orfantal has all of his possessions in a trunk. They are not much. Orfantal thinks he could fit in there too, ready to be discarded. Wreneck is 10, Orfantal is 5. His grandmother is sending him off somewhere to learn how to grow up. He knows there will be a time when unhappiness comes into his life as it does with every boy. A wagon pulls up. It will be his ride to wherever he is going. Wreneck makes sure they know that he is going to the citadel and that he is nobleborn. Wreneck tells Orfantal that the old horse is blind in her left eye, so don't let anything ride on that side of her. Orfantal says goodbye to Wreneck and Wreneck waves dismissively and leaves.
POV: Wreneck
Wreneck turns from some distance to watch them leave with tears running down his face. He resolves himself to return to the "evil hag" and now he doesn't even have Orfantal to make his life easier. Nerys Drukorlat had forbidden him from playing or even speaking to Orfantal. She would fire him if he did. His mother and father and sisters relied on his income. He wished he could have played with Orfantal this entire morning and hugged him goodbye, but he was afraid of the evil hag.
Location: Toras Keep. On the road to the Citadel
POV: Orfantal
The party makes camp and the scarred old man who loaded Orfantal's trunk says that this is likely his horse's last journey. Orfantal is sad to not even know the horses name and wonders what things she has seen in her life. He decided that she had been a warhorse and saved her rider many times, but not from the betrayal that finally killed him. The leader of the troop introduces himself to Orfantal as Haral and tells him not to call him sir. He tells him he guards merchants and that's all. Orfantal asks about bandits. Haral says there are some Deniers. Haral tells Orfantal that he will be sharing Gripp's tent. The man who took care of his horse. He says that Gripp can be trusted and not some of the other men in the party.
Haral says after this he will be joining House Dracon's houseblades. Orfantal asks if he was a soldier once. Haral says few weren't in his generation. Orfantal introduces himself. Haral asks why she named him that. His name is a Yedan dialect. The holy language of the monks, Shake. Narad, one of the guards, says it means unwanted and laughs. Haral tells him to keep his mouth shut on this journey and tells Orfantal his name doesn't mean unwanted, it means unexpected. Narad laughs again and Haral savagely kicks him in the face then punches him. He then walks away from the unconscious guard. Orfantal is trembling and his heart is beating fast. Gripp comes over and calms him down. He says it's discipline and Narad was pushing for weeks. Orfantal now has a face to put to all the faceless betrayers in his war games. Narad. Gripp shows Orfantal how to raise a tent.
Location: Within sight of Dracon's Hold
POV: Ivis
Ivis and Sandalath are riding towards the hold. Ivis tells her that Draconus will be gone for several weeks still. Her body tells him that she probably had a child, but that's none of his business. She is now a hostage at House Dracon's and she will be treated well. Sandalath asks where Draconus comes from. Ivis says even his servants do not know, but he proved his worth in the war. Ivis is upset at the discipline now presented by his houseblades and resolves to fix it. Sandalath is being led to a warm bath and thanks Ivis. He responds, "My pleasure, milady". Hilith the head of the house maids does not like him calling her a lady as she is only hostage now. She lets him know it. Ivis says, "Old woman, you are no queen to so command me. I will choose the honorific our guest deserves. She rode well and without complaint. If you have complaint, await the pleasure of our lord upon his return. In the meantime, spit out that sour grape you so love to suck on, and be dutiful." Hilith says this isn't over. Ivis responds with a command to leave his courtyard and if he hears of her being miserable to the hostage that it will in fact not be over.
Location: Dracon's Hold
POV: Sandalath
Hilith tells Sandalath to come with her to the bath. Sandalath asks if the water is hot. and asks her if there is wood ready just in case. Sandalath challenges Hilith and says she is to treat her as if she was the lady of the house. Hilith bristles but agrees. Sandalath remembers her first stint as a hostage and the horrible hag that made her life miserable until Andarist found out and got rid of her. If Hilith turns out to be the same, she will tell Draconus. A younger maid escorts her to the correct bath, not the one Hilith had prepared for her. Sandalath says if Hilith is her enemy, then Sandalath should have many allies. The maid smiles and says thousands. Sandalath asks the maid about Ivis and if she finds him handsome. She says he is old, but Sandalath doesn't think so. Sandalath tells the maid she feels welcomed by this house and feels born anew.

California - So my dad got transported to the hospital and just received a bill from the City for $581.
This is outside the insurance fee sent to MediCare, and thus insurance isn’t helping.
Apparently the City of Montebello - has a general fee to subsidize ambulance transports. article below. Other cities have a similar fee, and some offer a yearly subscription to avoid it but it’s not advertised anywhere and not aware Montebello has one anyway.
Yea $581 isn’t crazy but can I not pay this? Or how would I fight this, it seems so scummy and not legal considering surprise billing laws and all that. Dads 74, doesn’t have much so this going to collections would it stop his social security or can a city put a lien on anything? Has anyone encountered this?
Wasn’t sure where to post so any advice appreciated.
Here is the stipulation language on the bill
Article on $581 fee hike
Related article about a La Habra, CA paramedic fee

A month or 2 ago I posted here regarding a consistently disrespectful patron. This person was nasty/cruel/dramatic with bartenders and patrons alike.
This is a private club, she was not a member (EDIT: members can sign in guests). I had made known to the presiding Board that the next time she came in on my shift that I would not serve her. The response was “it’s your bar, do what you want”.
A now former friend (member) who has witnessed her bad behavior in the past was hanging out when I was working and suddenly left. I figured he was making snacks or picking up a food order.
Well, he went and brought her back with him (they are not in a relationship).
I asked her if we could be respectful to each other, and both have an enjoyable evening. If she couldn’t do so then I would not be serving her. She lost her bananas. I gave her ample opportunity to say “yeah, we’re cool, np” she wanted to re-hash what my problem was, stating she was confused and did nothing wrong blah blah. I told her she was more than welcome to contact me and we could talk when I wasn’t working. That was unacceptable to her.
I asked her to leave. She refused, she went to other patrons for “help” “she can’t do this” my former “friend” was outraged “you didn’t tell me you were going to do this!!” Sorry, bro.
Notable quotes: “But I don’t have a ride home”. Walk.
“Can I at least have a water?” No.
“I’m not leaving, let her call the cops!” (I called at this point)
“Can I at least have a cup so I can fill it in the bathroom sink?” No.
“You can’t deny me water, I’m thirsty!” I told her if she grabbed a cup she was going to have bigger issues regarding theft.
“I haven’t had a drink all day, it’s not like I’m drunk” (I had 5 patrons who saw her at 2 other bars all afternoon, drinking)
Now, it’s past closing time (I can stay open later if I want). I have a bar full of patrons who have been consuming. They sure don’t want to see the police.
All in all she was asked to vacate after 45 mins of absolute BS.
She wrote a letter to the Board demanding a full investigation into me and why I was “harassing” her.
They LOL’d and yeeted her for good. 🎉

Hi all, I’m 27F. I lived in Delhi and had shifted from Kalkaji to Malviya Nagar in December. Found the flatmate via flat and flatmate group on facebook. It’s a 2bhk and total rent is 34k. Before shifting, like any sane person, I visited the flat and sat down and got to know the other tenant is subletting and the owner doesn’t give one fuck about who shifts there, just needs rent. I sat down and spoke to her for 1.5 hours just to see who I’m going to be living with for the next 5-6 months as I didn’t plan on staying for long, will be shifting cities.
She lost her mother in December end(she is youngest of 4 children and is 31 years old). I had a lot of empathy for her as it’s a huge tragedy for any human to lose their mother. I Used to take all responsibility in the house, used to do all the work, pay all the bills so she could grieve in peace and not worry about these trivial things, used to keep checking on her regularly.
Her coping mechanism on the other hand was to bring dates to the flat - unannounced. Not judging, but a little heads up would be good as I’m a woman living in an independent flat, mostly wearing clothes which I wouldn’t wear in front of strange men. And she would never interact with me, even for coordinating the basis like maid, bills, security and utilities. Even if I would try to initiate the conversation she’d dodge and say let’s talk tomorrow.
Cut to April, I was in my hometown for whole months, on 25 April she texts the landlord is increasing rent by 20%. I felt something fishy because rent is usually increased by 10% with at least one month of notice. I told her 20k is too much for a room which is size of storeroom which no furniture, not even an AC. I only shifted here because it’s closer to my office and I didn’t plan on staying for long either. But I can’t spend 20k out of my 50k salary on the room. So I’ll probably shift.
When I reached at the flat a week later, I find out she’s kept some stuff in my room, dirty clothes on my laundry back including dirty underwear. Treated my room like a storeroom/dumpyard. When I expressed my disgust by merely asking ‘what is this’, she started getting aggressive and started verbally abusing me. Calling me ‘weird asshole’ because I came unannounced. She was physically violent and tried to attack me. Her reaction was that of a 5 year old, totally unhinged. Next day I packed my stuff and decided to leave the flat as it was already 30th. I told her to keep the security money and paid all the left Splitwise balance. Yet she said I have to pay rent for May and she will return my security at May end. I asked what’s the point when you are already keeping the security money. She had no answer kept asking for rent. Started harassing me verbally again. She was literally in my face trying to intimidate me.
Now I had rented a washing machine, we split the monthly rent for it. But it’s kept in her balcony and the access is through her room. It was supposed to be picked on the same day,but after abusing me she went to her room and didn’t let the machine get picked. I left for my hometown, my cab was waiting. The neighbours in building also mentioned she’s done this before with other tenants, withheld their AC. Owner is also aware of her behaviour but refuses to meddle.
Now she Kept texting me she will let it get picked at end of May as she is vacating the flat. I’ve scheduled the pick up for 25, but she wouldn’t let it happen. I’m anticipating she won’t return it and I’m thinking of filing a police complaint. Help me out guys, if I don’t return it I will have to pay 21k to Rentomojo.
What can I do in this situation? I still have keys to the flat FYI.
TLDR- 31f unhinged flatmate, got verbally abusive, harassed me for money, when I decided to shift. I have shifted from there but she won’t let me return the rental washing machine kept in her balcony, machine is registered in my name. She’s vacating flat at month end, owner doesn’t care.

When they were just McClelland & Hine...all quotes and renewals were smooth and on time. Email replies were timely. But since they merged with AmWins....email response kinda sucks, someone seems like they are always "out of the office" when you need them, we even lost an account because this year they decided to look into account with a fine tooth comb, which SHOULD have been done to begin with and decided to do this to this account a month before it was to renew and the communication was so off and on that the GL expired on the customer by two weeks before they finally got me a renewal quote with new square foot cost and his GL policy went from 2500/yr to almost 9k/yr. The customer was livid because his business was operating with expired policy because they took so long on it and then upped his premium to almost 9k? He went elsewhere and I don't blame him. But we are a one red light rural town and losing these accounts is going to really hurt. We just had another customer email us a letter AmWins sent them they were being nonrenewed and the reason listed was "Agent/Broker binding authority is terminated". What the hell does that mean?

Never thought I would be a victim of a scam but here I am.
Short story- got scammed by a fake IG thrift store. I've found the IP Address of the scammer. Is there anyway I can pinpoint his exact location?
Long story- I've been looking for motorcycle gear. I followed a few 'thrift' stores on IG that post used gear such as boots and jackets. One day I saw a really nice pair of Dainese boots for INR 9500. A new pair would set you back 4 times that (in India). I DM'd the page and he sent me a few pictures of the boots and said it's of great condition. His grammar was good too so I believe it was a legit store. I also found posts on his page from 2021 which gave me more confidence. Long story short. I paid him and shared the shipping address. I also told my friend about the great deal I got. He reached out to the same dude and found boots for himself. But the guy stopped responding to me so I started doubting him. I asked my friend to wait but he went ahead and paid him INR 2000 as an advance. A couple of days passed and the day the boots were supposed to be delivered came and went. There was no response which is when I went back to his page and found someone had commented saying he's a scammer. I reached out to the guy who had commented and he told me that the same thing happened to him. He had blocked both me and my friend on IG. However, I had replied to his story from a different profile so he thought he could scam another person. By pretending to be a customer, I was able to find his IP address. I've raised a complaint to the police but is there any way to pinpoint his exact location? Would love to get him arrested.

FIRST, WHAT IS THE RED CROSS?
The Red Cross was founded in 1863 by Henry Dunant, a Swiss businessman horrified by what he witnessed in the Italian battlefield during the Battle of Volturno. By 1933, the Red Cross was the central humanitarian player in drafting the modern laws of war. In fact, the Red Cross organized the conference that drafted the original Geneva Convention.

ANTISEMITIC BIAS
The Red Cross has a long history of antisemitic bias; most notably, it served as a propaganda mouthpiece for Nazi Germany and even helped top level Nazis escape prosecution.
After the Holocaust, Jewish survivors not only accused the Red Cross of doing little to help them find surviving family members, but also accused them of being apathetic and having “no feeling.”
But the bias didn’t end there. The Red Cross refused to recognize the Magen David Adom (Red Star of David) until 2006, even though it had long admitted the Muslim Red Crescent. This rejection was hardly just a symbolic issue, as it denied the Magen David Adom protection under international law.
Much like the Red Cross served as a Nazi propaganda mouthpiece during World War II, the Red Cross has periodically parroted Hamas propaganda over the years, only to later take back their claims, after the damage has already been done.

WHY ARE JEWS ANGRY WITH THE RED CROSS?
Since the October 7 massacre, Israel and Jews around the world have asked for the Red Cross to be permitted to visit the hostages held in Gaza, many of whom have chronic health conditions and/or disabilities and one of whom was around nine months pregnant. Unsurprisingly, Hamas has denied the Red Cross access, much like it has denied them access to other hostages and prisoners of war in the past, in complete violation of international law.
Though we hardly expect Hamas to act rationally, the Red Cross, which is in contact with Hamas, has made little tangible effort to access the hostages or information about their condition, or to even contact most of their families. Instead, it has dedicated most of its attention to condemning the Israeli bombings of the Gaza Strip. It has also chastised Israel about a new wartime law that passed in the Israeli Knesset regarding the conditions of security prisoners if a “prison emergency” is declared.

A LONG HISTORY OF ANTISEMITISM
By the start of World War II, the Red Cross, which was based in neutral Switzerland, had a policy of non-interference and “neutrality” regarding the Nazis’ racial policies.
The Red Cross chose only to concern itself with the treatment of prisoners of war from countries that had signed the 1929 Geneva Convention. However, they opted not to interfere regarding the treatment of civilians.
Following Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the Red Cross chose to “conform” to the new regime, rather than oppose it. In fact, an SS general, Ernst-Robert Grawitz, became the head of the German Red Cross in 1933. Grawitz was closely involved in the plans to murder disabled people and in Nazi medical experimentation. The German Red Cross thus essentially became a Nazi medical unit, rather than a humanitarian organization. When pressed about it, the German Red Cross claimed that, by allying themselves with the Nazi regime, they’d have access to concentration camps, which would ensure that the inmates would be “treated better.”

THE RED CROSS KNEW ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST AS THE HOLOCAUST WAS CARRIED OUT
In the 1990s, the Red Cross finally officially admitted that they’d long had previous knowledge of the Nazis’ plans for the total extermination of Jews and Roma.
As early as 1933, the Red Cross received desperate pleas from prisoners in Dachau concentration camp, begging for intervention. By 1942, the Red Cross had full knowledge of the Germans’ atrocities. In early 1945, the president of the Red Cross wrote, “Concerning the Jewish problem in Germany, we are in close and continual contact with the German authorities.” The use of the phrase “Jewish problem,” of course, is indicative of the attitude of the Red Cross, considering the very same phrase was used in the Nazis’ “final solution to the Jewish problem” (in other words, the Nazi plan for the total genocide of the Jewish People).
A representative of the Red Cross who’d visited several of the camps falsely claimed that other than segregation, “no other discrimination was made against [Jewish POWs].”

THE RED CROSS PEDDLED NAZI PROPAGANDA
By 1943, word of German atrocities toward the Jewish People had spread throughout the world. Following the deportation of ~500 Danish Jews to Theresienstadt, the Danish authorities pressured the International Red Cross to visit the camp/ghetto to check on its conditions.
The Nazis saw this visit as an opportunity to spread their propaganda. Nearly 8000 Jews were immediately sent to Auschwitz to counteract reports of overcrowding in Theresienstadt. In Auschwitz, these Jews were placed in a “special unit” in the event that the Red Cross chose to visit them.
The camp/ghetto was “cleaned up.” For example, buildings were painted and a football field was staged. “Cultural activities” were promoted to create the illusion that the Jewish prisoners were thriving. The Red Cross officials were taken on a tour of a pre-planned route and interviewed prisoners who’d been trained on what to say. Unsurprisingly, the Red Cross left Theresienstadt with a glowing report.

1944 letter from the Red Cross alleging they couldn't find any "extermination installations" at Auschwitz https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/exposing-the-red-cross

THE RED CROSS HELPED NAZIS ESCAPE AFTER WORLD WAR II
Both the Red Cross and the Vatican were responsible for the escape of thousands of high-level Nazi officials after the end of the war. In fact, the two worked together to ensure their escape. The Red Cross alone was responsible for issuing around 120,000 travel documents, many to Nazis. They also issued 25,000 new identity documents. It was due to the actions of the Red Cross that high-level war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele were able to escape.
To this day, the Red Cross has refused to comment on these findings, claiming that the travel documents were “misused” by war criminals, rather than acknowledging that the organization took an active role in ensuring their escape. The Red Cross also claims that individual Nazi sympathizers within the organization were responsible for this; in other words, this was a problem of a few bad apples. In reality, recent findings show that this was a systemic problem and that high-level Red Cross officials were well-aware of the issue.
In the decades after the war, the Red Cross continually whitewashed its actions both during and after the Holocaust, only admitting to some wrongdoing in the 1990s.

OBFUSCATING MORAL CLARITY
There are few situations in life where the moral stance should be crystal clear. Opposition to Hamas — and to the Nazis — is one of these cases. Yet, much like the Hamas propaganda machine has worked overtime to obfuscate the moral clarity of 10/7, so did the Red Cross obfuscate the moral clarity of bringing Nazi war criminals to justice.
The second in command at the Red Cross, Carl Jacob Burckhardt, even decried the Nuremberg Trials, calling them “Jewish revenge.”
For a full bibliography of her sources, please head over to Rootsmetals Patreon.
https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/exposing-the-red-cross

Hi there. I'm trying to raise awareness of a campaign kicked off by Ross Scott, better known as the man behind Accursed Farms with production & acting credits under his belt from the likes of Civil Protection and Freeman's Mind.
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w70Xc9CStoE (Explanation from Ross Scott)
Without going into things, Ubisoft recently shut down the game servers for 'The Crew', a 2014 racing MMO with a scaled down map of the US. Alongside delisting the game from storefronts, they have revoked it from game accounts where users own the game too, so there is no way to access the game install media anymore.
There are of course other games that have historically been shut down because of the game servers being shuttered. Two that come to mind being Battlefield 2 & 2142, but there are plenty others out there,
Now, this game isn't really anything to sing home about but it's a matter of a principle; people paid for access / license to the game and can no logner access it, and given the company behind it, Ubisoft, is French, it is probably one of the biggest openings for legal retaliation. Ross does a better job of explaining it, but he wants to attack this on all possible fronts: owners of the game filing complaints direct to the French trading/consumer authority, and people writing / petitioning in their own countries. What Ross wants is to stop companies from being able to just decommission games that players have paid for, and ideally force companies to either keep the services running, make provisions so that the games can still be played offline, or provide access / tooling so that player communities can keep the game operational just as is the case with some games today (like the Battlefield 2 Hub / Revive projects that stood up community servers)
In simple terms, if you buy a product, a company shouldn't be able to destroy it / remove your ability to use it. Ross is hoping that if we can get enforcement in at least one or two countries, this will just lead to publishers applying a similar policy globally like we have in the past with companies like Valve, Sony etc allowing refunds.
From a UK standpoint: a petition was raised and is up to 25k signatures at this point, just needs another 75k for it to be 'considered' for debate in parliament:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVGZe-xXS68 (Ross' response)
The response was a bit lackluster (although it's been disputed) and kinda suggests that whoever wrote it doesn't really understand the subject matter, but Ross has kinda speculated that it opens the door to future discussion / precedent being set. A point being that companies could potentially be forced to set expecctations of when the game will be shut down like an expiration date. It wouldn't be appropriate, for instance, for a company to randomly issue an update that forces a phone to stop working, would it?
I for one will be writing to my MP about it, if for nothing else then because I don't see what this would actually cost the government to consider given it's not denting their pockets directly.
I guess what I'm hoping to get out of this is spreading some awareness, potentially finding some friendly people who might be able to offer a shred of support to this campaign and just speculating whether there is a legal precedent for enforcement to stop this. EG, if I owned a copy of 'The Crew', could I take a complaint to the ombudsman / trading standards if Ubisoft refused to refund the cost / value of the game to me?

A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement and or reading recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.

Well, I heard back from Oonagh last night in response to the letter I sent to her and John about Clive’s abusive behavior toward me. I was hoping they just wouldn’t respond and I could peacefully move on with my life. But, Oonagh sent a response cc’ing John. Unsurprisingly, she was defensive, clearly in denial, and did the whole DARVO (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender) routine. She clearly was trying to find reasons to dismiss the things I said, and so she accused me of disclosing Clive’s private information, slut-shaming Clive, and being insufficiently understanding of neurodivergence. I just ignored the silly ad hominem nonsense, said I understood that neither of them had been through my experiences and naturally it would be hard to be objective in hearing my story of how Clive treated me, but I still hoped that speaking the truth of what happened could ultimately help, even if it might take them a while to process it. And I wished them well.
From growing up Mormon, I am very familiar with all the mental gymnastics people go through to cling on to untrue beliefs that seem to give stability to their lives. It’s the kind of thinking that keeps people in cults and toxic relationships, or lends itself to enabling and shielding abusers. It’s always sad to see it in action, but at least it isn’t even slightly mystifying to me at this point in my life in terms of how it operates.
So Oonagh is definitely an enabler, which is good information for me to know so definitively. I know that abuse thrives in silence, and abusers depend on their victims’ silence to enable them to continue being abusers. From Oonagh’s perspective, me speaking to her and John about Clive’s intimacy issues was a worse crime than Clive ignoring my consent and duping me into unwanted sex. She didn’t address the consent or emotional abuse issues at all, but said Clive wanted his friends to be happy, and if his attempt to make them happy didn’t work out, he was hurt. So, essentially, if Clive hurts someone, both Oonagh and Clive consider Clive to be the injured party and in their eyes, he is the person deserving of pity, instead of the person that he hurt. That was also his attitude - he viewed my grief as an injury to himself, which I think is pretty solidly narcissistic.
She kind of implied that Clive is on the autism spectrum and this is the cause of his communication difficulties, but that the difficulties were largely my fault - apparently I was supposed to magically know that he was autistic and magically be enough of an autism expert to understand him, and him being autistic also excuses lying to me to dupe me into sex and breaking up with me by telling me he’d never cared about me and was just using me the whole time. As if I hadn’t bent over backwards trying to understand him, and as if my efforts towards understanding hadn’t been largely one-sided.
It’s a pretty dizzying level of twisted illogic. Who knows if he is really autistic? That might explain some things, but so far as I understood, he has never had a diagnosis, or therapy, or professional help or treatment of any kind for his issues, despite the clear and undeniable fact that he has a long history of hurting women because of them. Definitely he is some type of neurodivergent, but behaviorally it looks more like pathological narcissism or even mild high-functioning nonviolent psycopathy.
And, if he really were autistic, why not just tell people that he is on the autism spectrum? Isn’t it a bit weird to be secretive about it, and yet expect people to just know, and to adapt to him, and accommodate him, and suggest that he doesn’t need to take responsibility for whether his behavior hurts others?
Yep. These people are a mess. And I am well shot of them.

I have been wearing NBs for a long time. I own multiple pairs and there was some brand loyalty there.
So I was really happy when I was able to purchase a pair of Action Bronson's 990v6 Lapis Lazuli last June.
A couple of months later (the wait was not an issue, as I was used to long shipping times and pre-orders for Aime Leon Dore NBs) I received a note from the Post Office here in the UK informing me that I owed more than $120 for import taxes.
Unfortunately, I was out of the country at the time and was not able to pay the cost (which I shouldn't have had to do anyway - I have never had this issue when ordering things from the U.S.).
So the shoes were returned to the sender. I contacted NB to ask them to resolve this matter and re-send the shoes. They told me they were not responsible for them, and to contact Specializing In Life.
I contacted them, and we communicated for months. They would typically tell me they were looking in to the matter, and would try to resolve it ASAP.
This went on from September 2023 until March 2024, when my final email to them bounced back. I assume their email is now offline.
It has been such an unpleasant experience. No one is willing to take responsibility, I have lost $250 or whatever the exact cost of the shoes are plus shipping, and most annoyingly I don't have anything to show for it.
For a company like New Balance, this really is a disgrace. It has left a bad taste in my mouth and disappointed me so much.
I have heard so many similar complaints about Specializing In Life and Action Bronson's product roll outs. I can't believe they're still allowing this to happen.

A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement and or reading recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.

My son's mother moved 50 miles away and is trying to change his school district. Filed court motion for me to pay for $10K 'best needs' evaluation with a psychologist. I looked up the guy and he has had disciplinary complaints from the board for ethics for his expert testimony. Apparently part of his evaluation includes questioning and testimony regarding past sexual history. Is it realistic that they can compel me to pay this?
I currently have 50% shared physical custody.
Reviewing the court motion and response to my counter to the judge it looks like she's just writing these court motions and letters and the lawyer is sending it out without editing them.

This is for the guy trying to say not to give money to homeless people flying a sign. This my personal experience from being homeless in Wilmington. I can't say as I speak for everyone, just my experience. 

I'm still homeless, but I've moved out of Wilmington. I had to teach myself how to read and write all over again, and this is what I do now. I hope you enjoy.

 Six-thirty am, I woke up to my alarm. I had to be at work at nine, and I didn't want to be frazzled from being in panic mode on my first day, hurried, and hassled. No, sir. You don't get too many chances to make a first impression. 

 Rolled out of my sleeping bag with a smooth, well practiced motion, unzipped the flap, and made my way out into brisk spring morning air, taking a brief pause, taking in the natural beuaty of the forest. If it hadn't been for the sounds of the highway a few hundred yards away, this scene could have been from a camping trip or hike that I remembered from days gone by. I didn't pause to think about too long due to the urgency to find a suitable tree to relieve myself. Fifty feet, at least. Fifty feet. Otherwise, that smell could come back to haunt you. This wasn't a camping trip but rather where I lived. My homestead, abode, residence, shelter, and as far as I could tell, it would be for a long time to come. 

 I decided to drink my energy drink, which had come to replace my morning cup of brew, outside this fine morn, so I made my way back to the tent and pulled my Monster can and my half full box of handrolled cigarettes from their hiding places, turned around and walked the fifteen feet to my "visiting bench". Aptly named because that's where we all sat when someone came visiting, which wasn't very often, a few feet in front was the small firepit. A hundred or so yards beyond, down a respectable hill, sat Frankies tent, another fifty yards at the split in the trail was Chris's small pup tent, where a small pile of trash meant that Chris and I needed to talk. This was my site, and I had few rules, and trash was something I didn't want to see. 

 According to the rules out here, our social contract, the first person at a campsite was in charge and I had spent the last month of winter all alone here to earn the right to call the shots. After all, it was deemed The Allen Compound for the Criminally Insane by my friend who led a real boots on the ground street outreach in town, someone that I had insane respect for and not a small bit of love. We weren't. I won't speak to insane. 

 I took a seat on the bench, popped the top on the Monster, lit up a smoke, and took a big long pull of the drink. Spring was starting to show now, and the highway was slowly starting to hide behind the new growth of forest. My tent was already invisible from the road thanks to a large camouflaged tarp that I had strung to block the view once I recovered from the panic attack following the discovery of how visible it once was. That discovery came not long after I set up camp, as I was returning from town. Walking down the shoulder of the highway, I just happened to look up in the direction of my camp and saw that my tent sat in the middle of a big clearing of branches, making a perfect frame for my work of art. The realization that thousands of people could have seen that on a daily basis. I was live bait for any psychotic person or persons to visit on a full moon. Recalling the stories of people setting sleeping people on fire for the fun of watching a human cook, I instantly turned on my heels and headed back into town, a spy who just realized he'd been compromised. I didn't return until I had a tarp, but even then, it was some time before sleep came easy. 

 Seven am and the spring sun were now spreading its rays of love to its children in the forest undergrowth, letting everything know it was day shift now in the kingdom. Down below, I spied Frankie, who piled out of his tent and sprinted to a tree like his bladder had caught fire. At the sight of this, I barked three times in greeting. He threw his head back and made a rooster crow, knowing it would wake Chris up long enough to feel the urgency. And by the time I stood up finish the last bit of my morning nectar, sure enough, scrambled out of his tent and instantly let it go right beside where his head would lay when he slept. I shook my head and trudged to my place to change clothes. A light blue polo type short sleeve tucked neatly into my cleanest pair of jeans, then a long sleeve light flannel over that as a precaution, because a lesson learned early is that you dressed for all day. There was no going home to get a coat when the temps plummeted, so it was wise to have that coat ready at all times. I changed my socks, put on my shoes and out of the flap I went. I closed it up and placed a pine needle inside the zipper that would let me know when I got back if anyone had violated my space. 

Seven ten am, and I was on my way. I had fourty minutes to be at the bus stop a little over a mile from the camp and I didn't want to be late, so off I went down the trail, just past Frankies tent I took a left, pausing just long enough to notice that Chris had gone back to bed and left his flap door open, then another fifty yard and over the fence to what I referred to as the 'exposed zone'. There, I was out of the woods walking down a small trail hidden only from the waist down by overgrown weeds and grass. The exposed zone went about a hundred and fifty yards to the shoulder of the highway, where I would merge left, facing the oncoming traffic. At that point, it wouldn't be so obvious to passing cars that I had just emerged from the woods, and the exact spot would no doubt be a mystery. There, my pace stepped up to an average of four miles an hour, something that I had clocked many times, and these days, it was a knowledge that came in handy. I could deal with being homeless, but not tardy. Every minute I walked along the shoulder of the highway, I was fraught with danger, at least in my overactive brain. I could envision cars swerving to miss the car ahead and turning me into a hood ornament, or blowing a tire and taking me out when the driver loses control for that half a second. Maybe something would fall out of the many dump trucks that passed frequently at seventy miles an hour and cleanly decapitate me before I even saw it coming. Why not? It's not like I was having a good luck streak, let's be honest. 

Seven fifty am and I managed to make it to the bus stop with all my organs just where they should be and my head still attached to my body. I lit up a smoke and fished three quarters out of my pocket, ready to pay my way and go to work. The bus pulled up on time, and I climbed aboard, nodding to the driver in solidarity, one working man to the other, dropped my coins of passage into the box, turned and found an empty seat by the window. I watched as the scenery went from historical homes with their gates and carefully tended lawns to the brown crabgrass and dirt yards where the children played in poverty, then to the blocks of businesses where hopes and dreams were born and died, with their big banners proclaiming another last chance at big savings, or let you know that for the twentieth time this furniture store was going out of business and these prices wouldn't last. Nothing but a higher class of a carnival barker. Free financing, limited time only, no interest for ninety days, credit same as cash, act now, last chance to save, overstocked and marked down, employee pricing, never before savings, trade ins welcome, don't miss out, and my all time favorite, below wholesale. Imagine that a business surviving by losing money. The saddest part of it all is that these tactics worked on people. For the second time that morning, I shook my head. 

Eight thirty eight am and the doors open at my destination, my job site, half the bus stood up to depart. Standing up and slipping No. 7 onto my shoulders, I let the line shuffle past me with the knowledge that I had time to spare 

 Eight forty, I stepped off the bus, gravitating to have a smoke with a small group of like-minded people who nodded their approval as I approached. The signal that I was accepted in the circle of debauchery. I made it clear, though, that I had no time to make small talk because I had to go to work and I was a responsible person. On time, it was late, and ten minutes early was on time. That was my motto, starting now, at least. Eight fourty five am I started to the job site, feeling the anxiety butterflies come to life in the pit of my stomach. I had never done this sort of work before, and I hoped I would catch on quick. 

 Eight fifty am, and I was standing beside the exit lane of the Walmart Superstore on a patch of grass where the stopsign was planted, dropping No. 7 to the earth. I bent over and unzipped the section that contained the piece of cardboard. As I put my fingers on it, I felt emotions pour over me, a mixture of shame, embarrassment, and determination. This was my third try at this, but I was determined not to chicken out this time, so, choking everything back down I pulled the sign from my bag and turned to face the cars coming up to the stop sign so I could show them the story of my life, condensed down to some scribbles from a Sharpie which read, 'Traumatic Brain Injury' in large lettering, with a smaller, 'Please Help' below. I'd never felt so alone as I did in that spot light that day at Walmart, that my life had led me to this point, here with a sign begging for money from strangers to get things I needed. It seemed like I couldn't even breathe with my phone service cut off, as I still felt sure that my son would call me at any minute to see how I was, and knowing that life line was severed was unbearable. 

 A grey van with a logo pulled up to the stop sign and I heard one of the doors open, then close, so I turned around to see someone jogging up to me, holding out his hand with a twenty dollar bill pinched in his fingers, "Here you go, brother. Take care of yourself, my man, "then back to the van and was gone. 

I broke. Just like that. I broke.