Text 5776, 95 rader
Skriven 2013-10-13 21:34:04 av Ruth Haffly (1:396/45.28)
   Kommentar till text 5680 av MICHAEL LOO (1:123/140)
Ärende: wondering/wandering 306
===============================
Hi Michael,

 ML>  A "Batchelor Survival" class was added my senior year
 RH> but I don't really know what they were taught, other than how to make
 RH> chocolate chip cookies.
 ML> A most important skill.
 RH> I know

 ML> But perhaps the Home Ec for Dummies course shouldn't be too
 ML> too effective: to wit: guy proudly feeds girl bad cookies,
 ML> girl thinks, maybe he needs me, success assured.

Could be, but I wasn't especially interested in finding a guy in high
school. I know, other girls were, and did get married right out of high
school. I'm glad I waited tho (G) Steve and I met freshman year of (2
different) college(s) but got married after I'd finished all but 2
classes for my BA. Finished those the first year we were married. He's
had a good number of chocolate chip cookies over the years. I baked a
double batch for my family just before my wedding; a couple of weeks
later, his brothers brought down some of our things we had stored at our
childhood homes. My folks gave them some of the cookies--they said that
the cookies were better than their mom made.

 RH> the last few years. Before Steve & I went up 3 years ago for Christmas,
 RH> we baked several, including some low sugar ones, knowing she was
 RH> diabetic. She went for the high sugar ones all the time, even tho the
 RH> low sugar ones were just as tasty. In the mornings she'd then fuss
 RH> about her blood glucose readings being high again.

 ML> Maybe the low-sugar ones aren't just as tasty. But in any case

One was a small, thin molasses cookie; I think she wanted bigger
cookies. I thought they were quite tasty. I don't remember what the
other one was.


 ML> one shouldn't wonder - cause and effect is cause and effect.

I know, that's why I watch mine so tightly.


 RH> I know, I was half skeptical myself. Hey, at least they responded to
 RH> our e-mail. Gotta give them credit for that.

 ML> I'm with others here, though, and immediately thought
 ML> "bug letter."

 RH> It'll get to be less and less "special" as the general flying public
 RH> catches on. Then they'll have to come up with some other "reward" for
 RH> those in the top tiers of flying travelers and so on, ad infinitum, ad
 RH> nauseum.

 ML> The goal is to get 25% usage; right now, eyeballing it, it's
 ML> under 10%. For me the issue is more that if the system loads
 ML> up as planned, the screeners are going to feel rushed and not
 ML> do their job. Of course, that's what the background check is
 ML> supposed to be all about, but we've seen some catastrophic
 ML> failures in background checking lately. With a large quantity
 ML> of people loading up THAT system, even more problems are likely.

 RH> I know, and travelling together, with both of us having it, doubles
 RH> the chances something will glitch and we'll end up both missing our
 RH> flight.

 ML> Not likely.

Depends on how close we cut our arrival time. We've done well except for
the last outbound one--got to the gate just as they were beginning to
board.

 ML> The odd thing here was that not only did the state refuse to
 ML> replace it for free, though I never received anything at all,
 ML> but also they didn't give a care about the fact that it had
 ML> gone missing. And, come to think of it, they wanted me to
 ML> come in and start the process, get rephotographed, and
 ML> everything.
 RH> Almost to the point where you want to tell them to forget about the
 RH> whole thing and wipe you from their records.

 ML> I forgot about the whole thing, but I doubt they did, and I will
 ML> forever be enshrined in the Maryland system.

Are you a registered voter? That may keep you "alive" forever as well.
(G)

---
Catch you later,
Ruth
rchaffly{at}earthlink{dot}net  FIDO 1:396/45.28


... History repeats itself because nobody listens ...

--- PPoint 3.01
 * Origin: Sew! That's My Point (1:396/45.28)