Posts by Jacob Long

It’s not even that people are trying to push pregnant women aside—it’s more like they assume you're an easy target because you look vulnerable, so they just skip right over you.🙂

You really have to stand up for yourself... I can't argue with that.

People have become absolute animals lately—shout out to the rare exceptions, though.

restlessmoose73 said:Honestly, none of that really gets to me... I mean, give me a break, right? At the end of the day, I’m going to have my own delivery and my own unique experience to go through anyway

I actually dig those details though—gotta know all the moves, right? heheh

Jack Garcia5 said:It honestly drives me crazy that I can't just send certain people a massive dose of karma—and trust me, I've definitely tried 😬

Right on.

It’s just one of those things, isn't it? The people who were already getting on my last nerve before pregnancy seem to have found a whole new gear during it—and if they're this much to handle now, I can only imagine how much worse it gets once the baby actually arrives. But hey, what can you do?

Kimberly Thompson36 said:It’s not even the fact that nobody lets pregnant women cut ahead that gets under my skin—it’s when some random person decides to jump right in front of me, acting like my bump isn't even there or, even worse, assuming I’m just out of shape... honestly, it happened again today at the Post Office and then at the grocery store, so yeah, I am officially beyond annoyed.

Honestly, same here. People have just lost all their manners lately

Thomas Barrett84 said:It feels like a lifetime ago since I was pregnant, but I still vividly remember how much those "helpful" little tips from my mother-in-law, the neighbors, and all those unsolicited experts used to get under my skin. You know the type—people coming at you with stuff like, "Forget those ultrasounds and all that radiation; I knew a woman back in Ohio who had a child with severe developmental issues, and she was certain it was because of the scans." It’s honestly exhausting.

Then recently, my mother-in-law actually tells me I won't even need sugar once I have a baby—which is hilarious considering I'm Type 1 diabetic. Like, hello? And then she follows it up with that classic line about how doctors recommend getting pregnant when a woman is having health issues. Just great.

What am I even supposed to say to that? 🙂🙂🙂

honestly—i'd deal with the pregnancy situation first before even bothering to think about anything else

I have this one friend who’s super thin—maybe 5'7" and about 110 lbs—and she handled pregnancy like a total pro. She didn't even gain weight during the whole thing, actually dropped a few pounds without any issues, and now she’s under 110 lbs again while still breastfeeding a toddler close to a year old.

If I ever had any theories about how this works, she pretty much debunked them all, so 🤷🤷

if she’s still getting regular periods at that weight, I’d say it’s doable

plus—some women lose their flow entirely when they drop too much weight, which makes getting pregnant a total nightmare

Zachary Kern6 said:Your husband was exposed to the mono virus—which doesn't necessarily mean he actually caught it, since we're all pretty much swimming in it and most people just develop antibodies—but based on the results, he doesn't have an active case right now. He doesn't have toxoplasmosis, nor has he ever dealt with it.

🙏🙏🙏
thanks so much for getting back to me

if you've got a sec, could you clarify—does this mean he can't catch mono again? (as far as I know, he's never had it)

one more thing, if he did end up having mono in the past, could that have left any kind of mark on his liver or maybe even his sperm count?

thanks in advance 🙏

Do you think this is actually going to be easier than just doing the shots?

I mean, I'm sure you're used to it by now—but honestly, looking at all this, it seems pretty complicated to me.

Not actually for me—my husband’s results came back regarding toxoplasmosis—can anyone break down what this means?

Goldman Sachs EBNA IgG (EBNA) - positive
EBV VCA/ EA IgG (VCAG) - positive
EBV VCA IgM (VCAM) - negative
TOXO IgM (TXM) - negative
TOXO IgG II (TXG) - negative

There’s more detail attached to each one of these... if anyone actually knows what they're looking at, I can post the specifics.

I had a pretty similar experience—saw this GI specialist out in Chicago... who told me I was dealing with major bloating—basically just trapped gas everywhere (makes sense)—and that my intestinal villi were a bit damaged, which he linked back to my diabetes, so things just weren't running smoothly

He had me taking these Venter tablets before meals; they kind of melt and form a protective layer inside to shield the lining
plus some Prolife probiotics
and honestly? It helped a ton

not a total fix, though—not that I’m still taking them

I really need to go back for a follow-up, but I just can't seem to make it in

it's a physical thing, but also clearly tied to my nerves—I've noticed everything flares up whenever I'm stressed

maybe you’re just low on vitamin B

Sarah Clark ... did you get that pump through Medicare or do you have to buy it yourself?
sorry ... I'm honestly clueless here
how much does it run you?
is there a lot of stuff sticking out?

can you lay out everything about the pump—I want to know every single detail

how old are you even????

goldentinker79 said:Hmm... maybe take another look at the incorporation papers, or have a lawyer check them, to see if that specific share actually grants any special voting rights that allow someone to steer the company's policy.
Also, I should mention—countries like Turkey, various offshore havens, Cuba, or a bunch of South American nations are flagged as high-risk zones, which might be why they're being so pushy. Where is the company registered? Is it a "politically exposed" entity? Like, are there any politicians hiding in the ownership structure?
If none of that applies, then grab the Bank Secrecy Act and politely ask the bankers to explain exactly why they need this. You have to be able to justify any extra paperwork to your own clients, right? It's a perfectly fair question. Once they explain, you'll know if some clerk is just misinterpreting the law or if they actually have a legitimate reason to dig deeper.

The founding entity is from Malta, while the parent firm is based in the Netherlands. That one Maltese share belongs to a director who's a resident there, and I really don't think it carries any special weight—even the bank isn't making a thing out of it, they're just trying to trace the ownership of the Dutch side... hmm. 🙄

Even in their formal notice (though they've been hounding me in person too), they claim the info they're asking for is strictly required by the Bank Secrecy Act—and if we don't play ball, they're threatening to cut ties.

The woman at the bank told me it wouldn't necessarily mean a total shutdown, but...

🤷🤷

Looks like I'll have to pore over the actual law and maybe run it by an attorney at this rate.

goldentinker79 said:I honestly can't tell if that one lone share carries some special weight or if there's something specific tucked away in the Articles of Incorporation. If the documents explicitly state that this individual holds controlling interest or something similar, then yeah, you probably have to follow through. But if it's not mentioned anywhere, I think the lady at the bank is just talking nonsense.🙂

That share doesn't seem special to me—honestly, it's probably just a formality in the founder's home country. The guy holding it is the director of the parent company, so he likely holds it as part of the job. 🤷🤷🤷

I pretty much know everything about the business side, though I'm not an expert on the ownership structure—not really. 🤷

They obviously know who the founder is (it's a corporation).... but that corporation is owned by another entity based overseas, and then there's that one share held by a local resident in the country where this xy firm's parent company is located—sorry, I'm repeating myself, but you get the idea...

Now the folks at the bank are digging for the ultimate owner—the third entity in the chain that owns our founder—and if it turns out to be another corporation again (which happens)... they'll keep going until they hit all the actual people with a major stake (25% or more), or a company listed on a major exchange.

I don't suspect anything shady, but owners aren't exactly eager to hand over this kind of info—if they could legally dodge the questions, they probably would.

mistystag0 said:This law was basically lifted straight from European Union regulations, so there isn't much way around it. If you actually feel like reading through it, the legislation includes specific indicators for determining risk levels. I guess it mentions that if a potential client refuses to provide their details, you have to report them to the Treasury Department's anti-money laundering division, which automatically flags them at the highest possible risk level.

The regulatory office seems just as clueless and incompetent as everyone else in the country, but they can still make your life pretty difficult regardless.

If you're dealing with a major international corporation, they surely have their Articles of Incorporation ready. Just hand those over to the bank and everything should be fine.

😲 I didn't realize that—any idea where I can actually read the full text of that law?

goldentinker79 said:You're probably thinking about those "beneficial owner" inquiries. Look, the level of detail you're required to hand over usually stops at the first tier of actual owners. You don't typically have to peel back the second layer to show who owns *them*. Once you've identified that first level, you've checked the box. Starting January 1st of this year, you won't be able to wiggle out of this requirement at any bank—it's straight from the European Union regulations, just like they told you. If I recall correctly (though I can't say I'm 100% certain), you generally only need to list the people holding controlling stakes, like 25% or more.

I didn't quite catch that—the US-based firm XY we're dealing with has an owner located overseas, which is a legal entity. That entity is clearly listed in the corporate records and at the bank. I showed them who owns that foreign legal entity, which turns out to be another legal entity from a different country. There's also one share held by an individual, who happens to be the director of the parent company here in the States.

So, we haven't actually reached a natural person yet, but the bank is insisting we identify a specific individual and provide their passport... is that actually right?

What I really want to know is if there’s any way to stop banks from digging through everything—like, can we skip the whole process of showing them the entire ownership chain all the way down to the actual humans at the top?

I haven't actually sat down to read the Bank Secrecy Act myself, but the bank keeps waving it in my face to demand all this info.

The parent company is owned by another firm, which is owned by someone else, and so on... it's a massive conglomerate, so things get messy fast.

Is this kind of thing standard practice across the European Union too?

Your friend had a completely different kind of exam, so it’s not exactly weird they didn't ask her to strip down while they did the same to you...

I know it feels super sketchy that they made you undress—and yeah, it sounds off—but honestly? 🤷