Posts by Carol Garcia2

William Phillips4 said:ironharbor45, I have to disagree—and I’m saying this from one parent to another. Times have changed significantly, especially for those of us who grew up in the 70s and 80s.

It’s unfortunate, but that’s just the reality.

I think you both have valid points, yet you're both missing the bigger picture. Sure, there's more traffic now, but overall, there are far fewer people out and about—not just kids. I remember when we were young, we practically lived at the local park from sunrise to sunset; you could easily pull together three or four different pickup soccer games every single day. Nowadays, those same parks just sit empty.
As for us adults, most people would rather spend hours nursing a coffee at a local cafe than, say, going for a hike in nature. It's a bit ironic—we don't live in massive metropolises where getting to the woods takes hours; we've basically engineered our own isolation.

Daniel Chavez14 said:So, I see—the main edge of using a barbell is handling heavier loads. That makes sense, though I don't personally train with massive weights. Honestly, I doubt I ever will—I’m not exactly some twenty-year-old athlete looking to maximize his peak strength potential. 😁

In that light, the bench press remains a bit of a mystery to me. Why would someone who isn't chasing elite powerlifting numbers choose to bench 135 lbs on a barbell instead of just grabbing two 65 lb Bubbles?

Because you get much more stability following a single path with a barbell compared to managing weight in each hand separately.

So, is there actually any snow out there?
Anyway, someone was rambling about gear—which, honestly, is usually the go-to logic when people face bad weather instead of just dealing with it.

Gregory Ramirez2 said:If you really wanted to, you could go through a medical PDF and try to find proof that every single drug, chemo treatment, or radiation session is actually harmless, etc., etc.

I think we're ALL pretty aware of at least one thing here:
If mainstream medicine were truly successful and totally safe for every single illness out there, then an alternative wouldn't be even remotely interesting to the average person.

The "most human" and precious things anyone can own are health, love, and hope.
If someone actually uses their brain regarding all of that and looks at the various info available, they’ll be able to judge what’s best for them when it comes to health and healing.
So, let's just let everyone decide for themselves—whether they want to take any advice from this forum, whether they take it whole or just bits of it. Let's leave it up to the forum members instead of trying to play cop and judge.
Don't rob people of what's rightfully theirs—it's like taking a bone away from a dog!

I'm with you on the impartiality thing—it would definitely be better if the person handling the "dry" moderation (insults, attacks, off-topic stuff) was someone who isn't even interested in alternatives, BUT looking at it from the angle of general quality moderation, just ask yourselves this:

For example, would a pediatrician be better if they actually love kids and care about healing (like they were "born" for it), or someone who doesn't even like kids and just finished med school because it pays well or their parents pushed them into it?
It's the exact same deal with quality vs. "dry" moderation on these PDFs.

When it comes to EVERYTHING people do, the most important thing is their character.
If someone has actual character, they might make a great mod regardless of whether they're tied to the specific topic of the PDF or where they are/will be as a moderator.

Btw, a mod for any PDF—no matter their profession—can still be biased toward certain members or pick on someone specifically. So, neither their expertise nor a lack of it determines how good they moderate; it all comes down to character first and foremost.

Thanks, I'll pass on the coffee 😉

That isn't quite the right comparison,

Casey Bennett said:Fury—it travels through saliva.

But what if they were licking their paws before that? 😲 🙂

And for what reason?
How does a sentence like 'xy posts have been deleted' actually benefit a discussion thread?

Blue Paw is a dedicated space focused on animal rescue and finding forever homes for abandoned pets

This thread has been closed—decisions regarding pet ownership shouldn't be driven by summer vacations or a lack of interaction with children, as those aren't the priorities this community stands for

Angela Campbell84 said:If things actually worked perfectly, we wouldn't even have anything to debate here.

Then there’s nothing to discuss—because triage, at its core, is a real necessity.

Jeffrey Garcia6 said:A bit about how these systems fail—my dad nearly died in the ER while waiting his turn (it was a rib issue), and they missed him entirely because their initial assessment was wrong.
He ended up with ruptured ulcers. It wasn't until after several interventions that they finally picked up the pace—and even then, the doctor was practically threatening us with security.

Another case—my mom sat in that same ER at Mount Sinai from 7 PM until 5 AM; we eventually lost our cool and caused quite a scene. By 8 AM, she was in surgery for a ruptured gallbladder.

Based on those and several other situations—close ones and some more distant—I can safely say the triage system at that hospital is broken.

Look, I am truly sorry you had to go through all that.
Just because the execution is sometimes sloppy or poorly handled doesn't mean the concept of triage isn't vital.
And—not to sound like I'm making excuses for anyone—those priority levels aren't set in stone; someone who was told to wait could still end up needing immediate care very shortly after.

Angela Campbell84 said:It’s hard to pin down who actually qualifies for specific types of healthcare coverage. 🤷

Are we still discussing emergency services?
It would be helpful to categorize what counts as urgent—what needs immediate attention versus what can wait a bit longer.
Think of it like triage levels—immediate, within an hour, a few hours, or maybe within 24 hours—where everything falls into a specific bucket.

So, yes, regarding emergency care, there are established protocols that dictate who has "rights" (to borrow the term from the quote—though it's a bit of a loaded word in this context) to receive that level of care.

Angela Campbell84 said:And which billing code would they even apply to that?

I assume there’s already a set fee schedule for specific procedures
though I’d probably double it—given that we're talking about emergency services.

Don't tell me they're actually requiring a prescription for Betadine—it's just an antiseptic, for heaven's sake.
What about Rivanol? 🤣
I really don't want to suggest anyone calls their doctor, because I refuse to believe they're actually demanding a script for this.
If this is true, we’ve truly lost our way.😂

Around here, I'm constantly sending people to the CVS Pharmacy for 10% solutions, and not once has anyone come back asking me to write them a prescription.

If you're going to challenge my medical perspective, take a look at Flogoderm or Zinc Vitamine—which, by the way, is way better than the standard zinc oxide paste from the big pharmacy brands.

I’m honestly moved to tears—truly, I am 😂

William Hall93 said:I’m making a bit of a generalization here, but most of my friends in their 20s and 30s seem to live exclusively for series, rarely ever touching a movie.

When they actually do sit down for a movie, it’s always some recent blockbuster, strictly in English, a Hollywood production, and it absolutely has to have over 100,000 votes on IMDb. Heaven forbid they watch some French or Korean film that only has a few thousand votes...

It’s the exact same story with series—it’s either Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and the top 50 shows sorted by popularity, or nothing at all.

What’s the deal here: is it just pure trend-following, a total lack of will to actually dig deeper, or just mindlessly swallowing whatever content is the most popular?

Or perhaps it's just a matter of perception. You "watch" a movie, but you "follow" a series.
It feels natural that people talk about series more often—they provide a recurring rhythm, where the plot pauses on some cliffhanger that needs resolving in the next episode—whereas a movie is usually a self-contained unit.
Of course, both high-quality films and series have their own merits, but I don't think they should be compared in quite this way.

I might be overgeneralizing here—but looking at my circle of friends in their 20s and 30s, most of them seem to live exclusively for series, rarely ever sitting down for a movie.

Then again, it's a completely different conversation when you consider that most people just watch whatever is handed to them on a silver platter anyway.

I’m no veterinarian, but I’ve found myself diving into this topic lately—and it turns out hypothyroidism (an underactive thyroid) isn't the only issue dogs face. While it's much less common, you can actually see the opposite case—hyperthyroidism, where the thyroid becomes overactive.

Of course he isn't the only one—though it does seem more common in dogs—which is why the title was adjusted.

The headline completely overlooks hyperthyroidism as a potential factor—it's a significant possibility that just isn't being addressed here.

It’s certainly far from being ruled out as a possibility—it remains very much on the table.

The topic itself actually brings up hyperthyroidism in two different spots—it's a bit of a recurring theme here.

Exactly—she mentioned it: Is there anything else beyond that?

Hypothyroidism isn't the only thyroid-related issue that dogs deal with—it's just one part of a much more complex picture.

Check out the thread above.
No one is actually stopping anyone from talking about hyperinflation—it’s an open discussion.

It lacks transparency—much like a closed-door meeting at a big firm where nothing is ever truly on the table. Anyone who actually understands what hypothyroidism is doesn't really need to discuss it—after all, even my dog is already being treated for it.

This forum isn't meant for self-diagnosis—that's why this specific thread exists, to provide a space for those who actually understand what hypothyroidism entails.
We can probably close the book on this health PDF—honestly, people who actually understand conditions like MS, Lupus, epilepsy, or ulcerative colitis don't need this kind of hand-holding. 😕

I hope I’m not overstepping here—Reddit really does try to go beyond just being a place for entertainment by offering its users high-quality information, and we shouldn't discourage that by forcing everyone to turn to Google just to find what's already on the page.

Nobody is being denied anything, nothing is being forbidden, and no one is being forced toward any particular side—I’d just love to see this point backed up with a concrete example. Otherwise, all this complaining feels a bit pointless.

The title stays as it is—since we’re dealing with a much more common condition among dogs. This doesn't rule out the possibility of hyperthyroidism, nor does it ban any discussion regarding it; I simply kept it as a mention for now. If we start seeing actual cases of hyperthyroidism pop up, then changing the title is no big deal at all. This thread is specifically for those whose dogs have already been diagnosed with hypothyroidism—I don't see why not, given they already know what they're facing. Yes, Reddit is meant for fun, debate, and sharing info—I don't see an issue here—and beyond updating the title, there are no restrictions on posting, reading, or discussing. Nothing has been deleted, either.

That much.

Jack Cook7 said:Some of us old-timers still remember the absolute meltdown back during that big measles outbreak in '72.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_outbreak_in_the_US_1972.

Or take that situation where they found out some livestock being shipped by rail from Canada down to a major West Coast port was carrying a nasty virus. They ended up literally scorching a mile-wide corridor along the tracks and the highway—all the way from the border down to the coast—with caustic soda...

Look, if we’re defending Milanović, you have to realize he’d need a massive, rock-solid reason to refuse to order a vaccine when the entire world's media is screaming in a panic. He saw what happened to those folks in Poland. Not to mention, if things had spiraled even harder here in America, he would've been the one left holding the bag.

Who actually let that kid cross the border in the first place? 🙂
When an outbreak hits, the strategy is simple: stamping it out.

boldbadger1 said:Honestly, I don't think it’s a matter of being illiterate—it's more about controlled mass deception and manufactured media chaos designed specifically to ensure the ruling class stays in power indefinitely.

People were actually far more politically savvy back in the days of America through those factory self-management systems—not to mention the early '90s when America was being built, or even at the turn of the century when the Republican Party was being ousted, right before Sanders took over. Unfortunately, every single politician since then has basically played them for fools, exploiting the public for their own gain. If you ask me, we’re more politically stunted today than ever before. And there is a very specific reason for that:

By leaning into extreme exaggerations of social issues and slapping labels on anyone who opposes the status quo—you know, the usual "right-wingers vs. leftists," "patriots vs. traitors," or all the other colorful insults that have become so rampant lately—they intentionally stir up chaos. They redirect the national conversation toward these emotional flashpoints to distract from how the actual system functions—which is essentially corruption from the top down to the local level—and the cutthroat struggle between interest groups for control over the money and power.

It's a psychological trick. People end up obsessing over things that are easy to grasp—issues they can form an opinion on based on lived experience or historical grievances (like old war tensions, religious clashes, or ideological ghosts)—things they feel they can actually debate or influence.

Meanwhile, the truly critical problems—the systemic corruption, the blatant nepotism, and the negative selection processes that have gutted our politics to the point where it no longer serves any social good (in fact, it’s actively harmful and dangerous to society)—remain unaddressed. Most people don't even see these as the priority because they've been assigned roles in debating "vital societal issues" like old political allegiances. That’s the trap.

The result? Incredible damage to our society. This controlled chaos breeds hatred toward anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do. It creates a distorted, dishonest image of our community and deliberately widens the rift between different social groups based on these manufactured stances.

And so, "we the people" waste all our energy on negativity, baited by these supposed "essential debates" and petty insults, instead of channeling that same energy into something positive for the betterment of everyone. It happens because these criminal interest groups (the Republican Party and its satellites versus the Democratic Party and its cohorts) manipulate the masses, treating the public merely as a way to fund the budget they live off of—all while maintaining the illusion that we actually live in a democracy.

I would go even further—adding all those other players who aren't strictly "satellites"—because in the end, it all boils down to...

By using extreme exaggerations of social issues and slapping labels on anyone opposing the current administration—think right-wingers versus leftists, or various cultural extremists—they intentionally manufacture chaos. It forces the public to obsess over these manufactured divides—shifting the spotlight away from how the system actually operates (where corruption runs through every level)—and masks the raw struggle of special interest groups fighting for control over money and power.

...regardless of whatever acronym is printed on their party's banner.

boldbadger1 said:Look, Marshall’s policy was actually quite pragmatic—honestly, it was entirely justified if you look at it from the perspective of protecting national interests and building up the country's global standing back then (setting aside all those internal messiness issues, which isn't really what we're here to debate). It wasn't for nothing that he stood out as one of the most significant statesmen of the Cold War era—the USA certainly enjoyed a massive amount of international prestige during that period because of it.

If we’re actually going to attempt a comparison between Marshall's standing and the current state of American political leaders, we need to be honest about one thing—just one. His sheer internal grit and that uncanny ability to manipulate complex power dynamics didn't just happen by accident; it was forged in the fires of his career as a straight-up fighter. He didn't just stumble into a position where he could shape the entire USA—he clawed his way there through constant struggle and a relentless habit of living life right on the razor's edge. Now, if you want to get into the weeds about who got screwed over in that whole saga—well, let's just say he fought tooth and nail for his slice of the power pie, and damn it, he actually secured it.

That kind of person—someone who actually understands they’re staring down much larger, more powerful adversaries—draws a certain kind of strength from that reality. It gave him the nerve to stay fearless, really. He knew how to navigate those high-stakes relationships because he understood one fundamental truth: you can be a powerhouse even when you're outnumbered or outgunned, provided you know how to pull the right strings. It was all about mastering the art of manipulation within those power dynamics. Honestly, that's exactly what turned him into such a massive statesman.

When you look at the big picture here in America, it’s clear that even though people love to argue about him, the Reaganite was essentially following in Marshall's footsteps. He operated on a very similar playbook—honestly, he had this incredible knack for making the impossible look doable. It was that classic "creating something out of nothing" trajectory, where you're constantly battling much larger adversaries and trying to navigate the complexities of the international community. That specific grit—that ability to hold your ground against the world—is exactly what makes the Reaganite such a significant statesman when you step back and view it through a modern lens. Of course, if you tried to run an objective, apples-to-apples comparison between Marshall's achievements and his, specifically within the global political arena, you’d just be wasting your time. It wouldn't make any sense.

And here we arrive at the current state of American politics—this collection of spineless opportunists who basically had everything handed to them on a silver platter without ever having to fight an honest day in their lives. When people like this try to draft a strategy for the national interest, we end up exactly where we are now. I’m operating under the assumption that today's politicians are fundamentally incapable of actually seizing power in the States because they are driven by nothing more than pack mentality—just latching onto whoever is strongest to serve their own selfish agendas. That is how they climbed the party ladders, too—through pure, unadulterated sycophancy. Let's not even get started on those few cowardly types who actually possess some semblance of talent—people like Mason, Josipović, or Pusićka—but choose to squander that capacity for their own personal gain. Honestly, I’d go so far as to say it’s rooted in deep-seated psychological needs and basic upbringing.

So—honestly? Looking at the current power dynamics shifting around the American political landscape right now, it’s pretty clear that things aren't looking too bright for the country. It's one of those situations where you just watch the players move on the board and think, "Well, we're in trouble."

Honestly, you could probably frame the comparison between Marshall and Reaganite leaders by looking at how they built their respective systems—people who actually spent years grinding away, deeply invested in the machinery they were running, even if they let their own biases color their judgment. It’s a world apart from the modern political circus we see today, where certain characters just ride a party wave straight into the CEO chair of some massive state-run corporation. They aren't there to build anything lasting; they just want that instant social prestige and the high-status title. Once they've secured the corner office through pure political patronage, they treat those companies like their own private playground—running them however they please, with zero accountability to anyone but themselves.

My take? It’s pretty simple—America needs to stop looking outward for a second and actually focus on itself. We need to prioritize building our own standing, bolstering our economic muscle, and strengthening the very fabric of our society. If we can actually manage to reach a position of true strength—which, let's be honest, is easier said than done given how much we get distracted—then, and only then, will we have the leverage to dictate terms. Only then could we shape economic or military alliances based on our own interests, ensuring they work for us and everyone else involved. Until we fix our own house, we're just shouting into the wind.

Honestly, back then, I wouldn't have cared if we formed an alliance with Mexico, Canada, or even India—as long as we were walking into that room as equals. That’s the key. Anything else is just begging for protection, and let me tell you, being the one looking for a handout is a losing game. It puts you in a weak position, and history shows that those kinds of deals always end up screwing you over in the end.

And here’s another thing—it’s never quite clicked for me why we all insist on labeling ourselves a "small" nation, acting as if being a smaller player means we’ll just be shoved into a corner and steamrolled once we’re fully integrated into the EU structure.

America is made up of thousands of municipalities and cities, and let me tell you, some of these local governments are incredibly successful and wealthy. You see these beautifully manicured towns where everything works, there’s no corruption, and the citizens enjoy massive benefits, subsidies, and even direct cash incentives for newborns to encourage families to stay put.

On the flip side, we have the mediocre ones, and then we have the ones that are flat-out broke.

The real divide between the prosperous towns and the struggling ones comes down to one thing: the competence of the people in charge. The capable leaders knew how to seize opportunities, fight for their status, jumpstart the economy, and actually improve life for their constituents. They knew how to leverage natural resources—they could take a gravel pit and turn it into a tourist destination, or take an empty field and transform it into an elite residential district. It comes down to competent people who actually *wanted* to work for the betterment of their community.

So, I honestly don't see any reason why America, even within a larger system like the EU, couldn't achieve the exact same level of success that a single municipality achieves within a state or county. We just need to actually work hard and strive for progress, rather than falling for the endless distractions of the far-left or the far-right—those two factions that keep deceiving society just so one of them can cling to power, maintain access to the budget, and live off the rest of us.

Is that really the right thing to say in a thread that's essentially asking who we should align ourselves with?
ccccc

Susan Perez60 said:Check the snake thread—you'll find me over on SON too.😉

That’s all true, but venomous snakes in America really shouldn't be a topic for pet owners. We can talk about my pythons kept at home as pets, certainly—but since we have both SON and KLJ, I don't see any reason to conflate the two.🤷
It's true—people often lack basic knowledge and are flooded with misinformation. I work on educating kids and teens about snakes—reptiles in general—and it is honestly disheartening how much ignorance and hearsay I encounter. That is exactly why I believe we need to distinguish "scary" rattlesnakes from domestic pythons. It comes down to the fundamental difference in how one approaches a snake as a pet versus encountering one in the wild.

And I constantly have to remind people that you simply cannot take animals from the wild—whether it's a snake, a turtle, a bird, or even a hedgehog—be it on SON or KLJ.

🙂
Look, I know you're active on SON, and reptiles were just an example. If I recall correctly, I've posted a few times on that topic myself. I'm certainly not against providing some education through a few posts, even if the subject belongs in a different subforum. As long as it doesn't devolve into general off-topic chatter. So, just explain it briefly and then point them toward the correct thread.🙂

Susan Perez60 said:Alright, great—I’m glad someone is finally tackling this. I am more than happy to help clear up any confusion, though I still maintain that the thread title is completely misplaced. There are protected and unprotected species out there—snakes, frogs, turtles, birds, fish, you name it—but just because an animal is protected doesn't mean ownership is illegal; it simply means they are on the CITES list, requiring owners to register with the relevant federal agency.

The basic rule for all moderators should be simple: if someone asks about a lizard they found in their living room or a field, that belongs in the "World Around Me" sub-forum. However, if someone is talking about captive-bred lizards—essentially pets—that belongs in the "Pets" section.

I wasn't sending private messages regarding a specific topic; I was just reporting it, hoping someone would tidy things up. Thanks for responding and for showing interest in resolving these kinds of ambiguities.

You're right—it would be more appropriate under SON.
But since it's already set up this way, I don't see the harm in the folks over at KLJ learning a bit about our local lizards or snakes—add whatever else fits. Besides, I rarely see our usernames popping up over on SON anyway.

It is also surprising—and I don't just mean our forum members, but pet owners in general—how little people know about the other wildlife surrounding them.
To stay on the subject of lizards and snakes, just try asking, "How many venomous creatures live in America?"

That is why I think it's fine for the post to stay here; we can just point our members toward the correct thread over on SON.

I don't really have much more to say—either step up and handle the moderator duties properly, or just step down from them entirely.

I'm sorry—I didn't quite catch that. Could you clarify?

Why is that a mystery to you?

Find me someone who actually knows everything—the kind of person who has an answer for every single thing.

bluerider2 said:That falls under your purview—not mine.

In your previous post, you essentially admitted that you aren't even sure what exactly you're reporting—period.

I wanted to weigh in here—I'm also in the dark regarding bird registration paperwork and how the exhibition circuit actually works. I've moved this post to the appropriate thread; however, if this turns out to be a troll post, there will be sanctions. On the other hand, if it turns out the user is asking about something illegal, we expect them to explain the situation to the community—since this was framed as a question, it could be a learning opportunity for everyone, provided there aren't specific legal methods to address it. Let's not just delete things and pretend they never happened.

That’s all from my end—since I was the one who handled the whole situation with the tiger cub.