I've had such bad experiences with fitness clubs that I will probably never sign up for one again.

One, which I will not name, promised that my ex and I would receive starter kits (plural) with helpful products in them when we signed up, and that was not true. The first kit was free and the second kit cost $75, which was not what we were promised in person or in the contract, and then the gym ended up being crowded with rude bulked-up gym rats who hogged the machines in groups. We ended up calling our lawyer to send them a letter and were able to get out of the contract with not too many hassles and no extra money beyond the two months we'd already paid for (no pro-rated refund).

The other club was clean the day we visited and there was no waiting for any of the machines because they had multiples of each, but that was not true for any of the other times we were there. Sweat crusts on the handle-bars (partly the fault of the users not cleaning them off, but also laxness on the part of the club for not enforcing a cleaning rule and doing cleaning of their own), slime on the floors in the locker room, and the sick smell in the pool room was not eliminated by cleaning chemicals (I've been going to pools all my life, and that was NOT a normal odor). Plus for whatever reason it was almost always crowded after that first visit. Fortunately we only signed up for a month so it was only a little waste of money.

Unless someone buys a membership for me as a gift, I'll probably forgo fitness clubs and just do yoga and free weights and walking on my own. The cost is so high, you're surrounded by people watching you (some of those clubs even put their machines right up against the window so passers-by can stare at you while you jog or bike or what have you), and the seemingly high percentage of rude people just makes them miserable to use, unless you're already a fit, tanned, rude gym-rat yourself. I totally understand why there are gyms popping up here and there that only allow clients who need to lose weight, or are for women only.

If I lost my phone, you would not be in the right to keep it just because my name and address wasn't written on the phone or saved inside. You would be required to either contact the police or turn the phone into a store run by the service provider so that they could find the rightful owner of the phone. Searching craigslist or posting flyers would not be considered sufficient for the phone to be legally your property. It's no different with dogs, and the police have sided with the dog's original owner. Also, she DIDN'T get the dog properly licensed until his original owner claimed him back, nor did she file a found animal report as required, or post an ad in the newspaper.

Here is another article with more information on the background of this story, and I've quoted one brief part of that article below: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012... :

--Portland police also have sided with Hanson-Fleming [the original owner]. In police reports obtained late Wednesday, Officer Wendi Hamm told Biggs [the girl currently keeping the dog] in a May 15 phone conversation that she had failed to follow Multnomah County animal code in taking possession of the dog because she didn't file a found-dog report with animal services or post ads in the newspaper.--

He should counter-sue for his legal costs when he wins, since it is quite clear that she did not follow the law in regards to notifying the authorities after she found the animal. I feel a little sorry for her because she obviously formed a bond with the dog, but if she'd followed proper procedure in the first place she wouldn't be going through what she is going through now, and she wouldn't have spent so much time bonding with the dog, and all that money on getting the dog trained (money which I do not believe she is legally entitled to try and get back from him, considering she did not follow the law when she kept the dog, and if she had, the dog would have been returned to the rightful owner before she had a chance to do so). But I feel even more badly for the man who was deprived of his dog for so long by a girl who seems to think that "finders keepers" is okay, even though legally that is often not the case. She messed up and yet she's still acting like a spoiled brat who isn't getting her way, and she can deal with the consequences, which in this case are as simple as giving up the dog and the money she spent on him, and hopefully court costs and legal fees for the rightful owner that she is dragging through all this unnecessarily (and to her own detriment, both financially and reputation-wise).

That is a seriously disturbed child. I feel so badly for those who loved and cherished the little girl, and for those left to deal with the aftermath of what this boy did. There are no easy answers, no simple solutions, and no chance for true justice in a case like this where not one but two young lives are destroyed. Hopefully, in time, those who are grieving and suffering over this can find a small measure of peace.

Seattle drivers are irrelevant. This happened in Orting, on a road with multiple bends. A different version of this story on KIRO's website said that she passed the cars just before a bend in the road, which is not a safe maneuver no matter what you are driving, and that she flashed a peace sign to the car as she passed, which could have been mistaken for some other kind of hand-sign. There is NO excuse for the car running her off the road like that -- I'm not defending the driver of the car at all, or belittling her suffering -- but it sounds from these two articles as though she could have been more courteous or careful herself in the way she shares the road, especially since it looks like there's a good stretch of straight road after the place where she chose to pass them that might have been more appropriate for such a maneuver. I hope she makes a quick recovery with no lasting scars or trauma, and that the creep who chose to run someone down is caught or turns themselves in. Again, there's no excuse for that kind of behavior.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/crime-law/driver-...

That poor man! I'm glad they were able to piece his story together within a short time. As for the caretaker, he doesn't deserve that title, because there was no sign of care for anyone but himself in his actions.

I know the kid never made it to a stall because the bathroom probably didn't have stalls, I was referring to the fact that if the bathroom *did* have stalls they might not have designed it with a locking door (as there would be no need for a lock if the stalls themselves locked), and the creep that did this wouldn't have been able to barricade himself and the boy in the room and hurt him so badly. That's what I meant by "This is a good reason why restrooms should have a locking stall within *rather* than a locking door." I was basically trying to say that this is a safety issue with locking single-occupant bathrooms that could have been avoided if the bathroom had stalls that locked and an outer door that did not.

Definitely an unexpected event, but I'm glad it didn't end too badly. On another note, I have never seen such a young-looking man behind a news desk. It's rather refreshing.

He's exactly right in saying that in a perfect world it would be no one's business, but right now the world is a very imperfect place, and I'm pleased that he had the courage to stand up and say something. This wasn't exactly a surprise, though.

Yeah, he does. The first moment I saw that picture, with the sheriff logo in the corner, I thought it was from the "Faces of Meth" picture lineup that Portland does. He looks as diseased on the outside as he is on the inside.