They said the official report was he got a cramp but the people that were there said he had been drinking all day and kept swimming out farther and farther and kept saying leave me alone I know how to swim. I think it was case of drank too much and tried to show off and he got too tired or really did get a cramp and couldn't make it back. I know it sounds like something my boys would do and they are the around that age. They think they are bullet proof. I was really sad to hear about Kennedy too. This post was the first I heard we were so busy at work today I didn't get to check the internet much. Last I heard was he was admitted for a siezure. The Kennedy's do seem prone to bad luck with the men in the family. Scarry thing to go through for anyone.

My neighbor had hers done by professionals back in the early 2000s and she hated it. I've had a much higher percentage of clients unhappy with concrete counters. I tore out another one last week. If they were so great, the 'trend' would have lasted longer. No one asks me about them anymore. I think people fall in love with and romanticize the idea of making their own tops and saving tons of money. Again, the IKEA EFFECT is in play here (Google it).

((((HUGS)))) Unfortunately, even on "nice" boards, there are times when claws, or just schadenfreude, come out. :( It's very sad, and I'm so sorry you've felt people being mean to you. I know it doesn't help at all to think "it's about them" when you were looking for a "safe" (or as safe as a public forum can be) place to discuss a delicate subject. ((((HUGS)))) States complain about lost revenue from sales taxes not being recouped, but they don't complain about the amount of commerce in general, even if it's the gas spent by the delivery trucks. When they start discussing this on the Federal level (interstate commerce), and start thinking about levying tax on internet purchase (other than the instate tax that people are used to paying), there's such an uproar, and the constituencies, both sellers and buyers, are so upset, that they drop it. The world is changing, and it's taking some time for people and modalities to catch up. Sometimes it's easier to buy a roll of masking tape online than have to hike around a big box store looking for it. People don't do that to avoid the tax! Still, sales tax is regressive. People with the least money spend the largest portion of their incomes on sales tax. They order out of state, take trips into bordering states that have no sales tax, into bordering countries where they have no tax or give it back, etc., etc. Sales tax is onerous. It's always been the law in most places that collect sales tax that you have to pay it on things brought in from out of state. In my state, it has mostly been enforced on really big items like cars. Unfortunately, a new kitchen is pretty much the equivalent of a car. But if it's in the news about your state collecting on Income Tax filings, and you've received a phone call immediately after, I agree it's probably a scam. And I agree that you would most likely have received a form letter rather than a phone call. In fact, the normal way it should happen is that first you'd receive a form letter from your state's revenue agency telling you that you were obliged to report, and then if you didn't report and they had reason to think you should have, they'd send a reminder of the things you should have reported and an option to pay the back taxes plus interest. Then you'd receive a form letter telling you about a hearing scheduled. And on like that. If your friend received a call, it should have been a recording. Live person calls are too expensive for chasing a pittance (and the amount of tax owed, even if your friend's new kitchen is even nicer than yours, is a pittance to the state coffers). You could check with the department of frauds to see if this is a known scam, and a lawyer to see if it's possibly real.

Jerri's long post is describing a legal technique, and a widely used and accepted one, used to create reasonable doubt. It makes sense to do that in a criminal case where a defendant is not trying to prove anything, but rather is solely trying to make it impossible for a prosecutor to meet the burden of proof. It works because you're essentially saying: Look, there is reasonable doubt b/c Joe could have killed Sally There's also reasonable doubt b/c maybe Sally wasn't even killed at all but committed suicide. Or, look, maybe Tim killed Sally This is effective as a criminal defense strategy, which is called arguing in the alternative, only because the point isn't for the defense to prove any of those things. The defense presents several alternative theories of what may have happened (even if those things are mutually exclusive and could not have all happened) so a prosecutor must disprove all theories in order to meet the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It has little utility in any other context, unless you are trying to introduce doubt as to whether someone else's version of events is true. The media can and does try to control the narrative by choosing what facts to report and by emphasizing different things depending on context (e.g. if there is a scandal involving a democrat, the focus is on "republicans "pounce" or overreach on random-politician-whose-party-shall-not-be-named-until-paragaph-20 kicking puppies" or "horrible leak revealing democrats kick puppies is a horrible leak and we must root out the leaker" whereas if a scandal involves a republican, the focus is "all republicans kick puppies because this random unknown state senator does." or "brave whistleblower reveals republicans kick puppies") ... but, despite clear and undeniable media bias, a fact is still a fact is still a fact.