Teachers always dig up some excuse for why something can't be done, and then they act completely blindsided when people start looking at them sideways. They wonder why they have zero respect left—and no, the answer isn't their paycheck.
Here’s the issue: the coffee is garbage. To make matters worse, the waiter gets all defensive, claiming it's the best they can do and their hands are tied. Then he actually has the nerve to ask why I even bothered coming in for a coffee and if I don't have anything better to do with my time. He finishes by saying if I don't like the brew, I should just order something more expensive—then we'll see how "good" this coffee actually is.
The biggest issue is the curriculum itself—the way subjects are structured and how bloated they are. We’re drowning in an endless sea of useless information. They cram everything into the syllabus, much of which nobody actually needs, just to produce graduates who might technically "know" everything but can't apply a single thing in the real world.
Look, obviously preventing bullying is important, but that's the easiest part to fix. Once you actually fix the rest of the broken links in this chain, addressing violence becomes a minor side issue rather than a systemic crisis.
Nicholas King said:The Passive Aggression of the Education Department, Part II.
BTW—which incompetent teachers are we actually talking about here? I thought you claimed they didn't even exist—since, apparently, nobody has filed a single complaint?
Amen!
Emily Gonzalez51 said:And what's the actual goal here? Are we just going to drag this out indefinitely by insisting that teachers are both the cause and the cure for every single failure in the American school system?
Nobody is claiming they're the root and result of everything, but some certainly contribute, just like the students do. The real issue is this disgusting system. Everything else stems from that. Teachers are only at fault because they uphold it and play along with the whole "don't rock the boat" mentality.
Emily Gonzalez51 said:Ugh, you are so exhausting. Just because people are aging or dealing with health issues doesn't mean they're doing a bad job; I specifically wrote that NO ONE had complained about anyone, as far as I know.
Besides, you'll be old one day too, and maybe even sick, so I don't get why you lack even a shred of basic empathy for a situation that is completely unavoidable.
Emily Gonzalez51 said:Nagasak is focusing on the "trying their best" part, not the "it isn't good" part.
If someone is trying their absolute hardest, then what they produce is quality work. If they need medical leave, we find a substitute.
Empathy is fine, sure. But how is it even possible that one set of standards applies to employees in the private sector, while a completely different rulebook exists for teachers? Tell me, how many people do you think would survive in a corporate environment like Google or Goldman Sachs under the principle of "just try your best, and that’s enough"?
It’s beyond me why teachers expect parents or students to just swallow some subpar situation simply because "that's how things are" and nothing can be done about it. Unacceptable.
And why on earth should certain kids and their parents be forced to suffer just because some professor is incompetent and useless? Does that fact somehow make things easier when they try to move on to higher education?
So, it took Americans thirty years to catch up to stuff we were already doing back in the old days of failed socialism? 😂
Regarding those gardens—honestly, I don't think the city or the state is going to complain, nor should they. You're maintaining property that they actually *should* be looking after. If you didn't step in, the whole place would just be overgrown with weeds and invasive plants, which would be a much bigger headache for everyone.
It’s a bit of a Catch-22. Technically, you're violating property laws by trespassing, yet you're actually saving them from their own legal obligation to maintain the area. It creates this weird little symbiosis. 🙂
Timothy Bailey30 said:It definitely isn't strategically insignificant—I am 100% with you on that one. It's all about the water!
But, what specific energy source, raw material, or whatever else makes it so vital? 🤷
Though, staying clear of the Chinese and Russians is probably for the best; we really don't need them breathing down our necks too.
Water, for sure. That's why we're going to be huge players. In the future, water will be worth way more than oil. We don't have much in the way of raw resources, but our geography is unbeatable.
What does it matter to anyone looking to do business? Who cares if they have blue eyes or not; it doesn't change anything.
It’s a job risk, sure, but you should be able to link the two—meaning once you leave the "crime scene," you don't ever step foot in there again. And clearly, they got played hard if they actually managed to remember them. 😁
I’m with you. You take those opportunities whenever they present themselves. The last time I actually pulled it off was during my military psych eval. A few of us coordinated to mess with the psychologist—honestly, it was one of the few times I actually had a blast. On the flip side, I didn't have the guts to pull anything with the DMV evaluator, and looking back, I definitely regret that. Next time, I’m going for it.
Are you just trying to sabotage the process by proving to the psychologist that you've already cracked the code on how the test works? Do you honestly think a psychologist is going to stop the session just because a subject knows enough to manipulate the results?
It’s a mess. I have no idea what the ceiling is for damages based on what you just described. On the flip side, you could potentially sue for emotional distress, mental anguish, invasion of privacy—all that nonsense—and there's practically no cap on those amounts. Why haven't you brought this up with your lawyer yet?
There's no need to make a scene over drilling a hole in the wall. Even if it’s a load-bearing one, it isn't going to compromise the structural integrity of the building.
The building inspector doesn't have the authority to just barge into your apartment whenever they feel like it.
As for switching to individual billing, every single resident on the shared meter has to sign off on it. Given how they handled things previously, there's zero chance they'll agree to it now.
Look, here’s the deal. It was actually up to the residents to report the increased square footage to the utility company. They were supposed to hire a licensed engineer to draft an official installation project and submit it to the district heating provider. Only then would the company update the measurements and start billing accordingly. The residents shouldn't have even attempted this without getting the utility company's green light first.
The whole mess depends on what they actually did. Did they add radiators to those later additions, or just seal off the balconies? If they added radiators, the heat load went up—which means they're essentially stealing even more energy.
You can report them to the utility company, and they’ll send someone out to inspect. But if the residents refuse to let the inspector into their unit—which, legally speaking, they don't have to do—then you’re stuck just sitting there hating them.
If that doesn't work, your only other option is to sue the residents. Just be warned: you'll likely screw yourself over. By the time you cover all the legal fees and expert witness costs, you'll be freezing to death anyway, making the heating irrelevant. 🙂
Everything I just laid out is right there in the Terms of Service for thermal energy supply. Go read them.
Jeremy Alvarez5 said:So, if we're talking about the unfair distribution of wealth, let's be real—church "assets" were mostly built by wiping out sects and cults and seizing their property to reward whoever was closest to the Roman Emperor. And when you look at state ownership and how land was handed back to various nobilities, the whole US was basically under the thumb of rulers who just handed out spoils to anyone who helped them fight off external or internal enemies...
But nowadays, with capital flowing across borders so easily, it just favors whoever has the most cash, regardless of where that money actually came from...
I guess what makes things truly fair or unfair would be if someone could actually achieve more just through their own hard work and dedication...
Vatican City is pretty unique in how they manage their own resources. I wonder, maybe, what if others actually took a page out of their book?
Should we just hunt for an absolute monarch and hand all our assets over to the government, then hire foreign mercenaries to guard the "altar"? ☕ 😬
The Daily News is hiring; looking for a monarch. What kind of criteria should we even set? Does he have to be filled with the Holy Spirit?
Sure, except every single application would get tossed out because nobody on the planet actually meets those standards! 😁
I agree with the quote above; they've hit the nail on the head this time.
Regarding the communist state versus Vatican City. Obviously, there’s no direct link there, given that communism and the Church are polar opposites.
What I keep saying is that, psychologically speaking, the Church and communism are essentially two sides of the same coin—they're just competing for the same space. That's why they can't coexist. Both systems crave centralization, absolute conformity, and autocracy. The only real distinction is that the Church pushes God, while communism pushes a leader who calls all the shots—and then they pass those orders down to the lower ranks as if they were the will of God.
Ugh, things are smelling pretty rotten here; there’s just an endless string of shady circumstances. We're talking about a high-value property, so naturally, everyone is ready to pull whatever stunt they can.
The first red flag is the purchase itself. There is zero proof that these people actually received the 90% down payment, let alone the remaining 10% later. There are two ways this plays out: 1. Either those Mexicans got the cash and are now playing dumb because things back home aren't looking so bright, so they want to reclaim or flip the apartment. 2. Or, the Mexicans actually left the place in escrow, and some "colleague"—and honestly, with coworkers like that, you don't even need enemies—forged the signature on the sales contract. That’s straight-up criminal forgery, but apparently, nobody gives a damn. It's bizarre how easily she's dodging accountability for the whole mess involving real estate manipulation and document fraud.
The second red flag is your lawyer. (Advice: consult someone else or just fire him.) From where I'm sitting, he isn't acting in your interest at all; his legal advice is garbage. Are you absolutely certain he hasn't sold you out or isn't just trying to drag you into a lawsuit just to bleed you dry for more fees?
Unfortunately, instead of protecting you, the "rule of law" is just enabling the chaos. It looks like you're the only one who actually paid for this place in good faith.
Angela Cox said:Is it possible for me to head up a department dedicated to liquidating the "deserving" ones whom the courts have conveniently overlooked? 😈 😁
Sure, if you want. Just don't expect any official paperwork.
hollowtrucker77 said:It’s a stretch to think I’m the one getting singled out here, and honestly, you missed the point entirely, are we all just supposed to be idiots because we actually follow the rules and respect our neighbors? I suppose we could all just cave in, since the blame is pretty much spread evenly across the entire American social fabric, both inside and outside our little circles.
Sure, you're right. In the end, you and I are just as responsible for what happened to Luka Ritz. Maybe not in the same way as the thugs who actually beat him, but we're certainly guilty for failing as members of society.
northernbadger4 said:People need to learn how to defend themselves if they don't want to end up in a situation like this. No one else is going to step in and protect them. It's an unfortunate reality. The law can't stop these things from happening; it can only punish them after the fact. But that doesn't mean much to someone who's already gone.
And let's be honest—the legal system isn't even particularly good at the punishing part either.