By whoanoa - 10/03/2010 03:12 - United States
Same thing different taste
By Shampoodle - 11/10/2017 21:45
By Anonymous - 29/12/2016 02:38
Yucky!
By theapplesleader - 23/12/2019 03:00 - United States - Washington
Boundaries
By Mom stop plz - 23/06/2024 02:00 - United States
By someboody - 15/08/2015 16:50 - United States - Paso Robles
Contact
By Anonymous - 17/04/2021 21:27
By "linzi1771" - 15/12/2018 05:00 - Canada - Vancouver
By isucksomuch - 31/07/2011 06:18 - Canada
Pink tax
By banj0 - 06/10/2012 22:58 - United States - Madison
By Anonymous - 10/10/2010 09:05 - United Kingdom
Top comments
Comments
This is, again, another testament of our media saturated culture. The term "Internet resource" is quite the oxymoron indeed unless, of course, you're Internet resources come from online accredited peer-reviewed journal. A ten year old book is indeed more reliable than many so-called Internet resources. Especially if it's an encyclopedia or other educational book.
That is not how tick transmission works-- looks like your dad's home remedies book was full of fail.
@truthisRelative "Internet resource" is not an oxymoron. A resource is any work that provides accurate information to fulfill a need. It is up to the user to determine if a source is appropriate for his/her needs. If I want to know what time a movie is playing at my local theater, a peer-reviewed journal is not going to provide helpful information, but fandango.com will (and therefore is a reliable and acceptable resource for my needs). Similarly, I would not cite Wikipedia in a college thesis, as it is not a reliable resource for scholarly works. In this case, the Center for Disease Control website contradicts the resource Snickerdoodles cited. I will use my judgement to say that in this case, a published book is not more reliable than an Internet source. (Funny you should mention the encyclopedia-- In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature found there was very little difference in the error rate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Just saying.)
YDI. someone should call the ASPCA on you for letting your dog get infested with ticks! that's neglectful! buy some advantix for goodness sake.
I'm outraged by your comment. There is no 100 percent sure-fire way to prevent ticks. I live out in the country and my dogs get ticks periodically despite the fact that I regularly apply tick repellent to the dogs. By your logic, if a child were to, by chance, catch lice at school then the child is to be taken away from its parents. Think before you type, because that comment was garbage.
you shouldn't be allowed to own a dog
Keywords
Actually, alcohol will kill most bacteria, so you're wrong. But I agree that it's sick that she's using them in the first place, and going through the trouble of sterilizing them without removing the hair. There's tweezers at Walgreen's for a dollar and they work just fine on my eyebrows... if you're not a caveman, it shouldn't be a big deal to get a new one (at least she wasn't using your hairbrush on the dog and GIVING you ticks).
that's gross