My point, Evilbeagle, is that it apparently is an issue for some people, and it makes very little sense to castigate those people for having their opinion on the matter. And in this case, making the sign reflect the present day is easy and cheap. Getting offended at people for being offended is dumb. It's popular to pick on people who seem to be "oversensitive" but it actually makes no sense. It's a non-starter.

It hurts you not at all if people want these signs changed. If this were a post about some other tiny expenditure in public works, you would not have commented. So I find it telling that the fact that somebody wants outdated signage changed compels you and others to get up in arms.

And I didn't say all men are chauvinistic; I said that the people crying foul over somebody wanting a piddly sign changed are idiots, and the fact that the issue has a gender component is obviously the operative factor in their overblown responses. To pretend otherwise is a joke.

And as for language not changing reality, well, that's wrong on about a thousand levels.

My main point, though, is that the almost violent reaction people have to other people's sensitivities is absurd. If someone feels offended by something, why does that offend you? It's common sense to say "Well, I may not be personally offended by such-and-such issue, but if it bothers somebody else, who am I to say their feelings are wrong?" Instead of taking that tack, people start flipping out and attacking.

I guess it's just easy to attack people for their opinions on what bothers them and requires less intellectual work than considering where they may be coming from, considering the power of symbols and language in culture, and considering the possibility that stale complaints about an "overly PC" environment are cliched and dense at best, and covers for prejudice at worst.

I can't believe how intolerant both the male and female posters have been. It's a tiny expenditure to correct an inaccuracy. How could you possibly have a problem with that?

But instead of recognizing this as a simple adjustment, people are coming out of the woodwork to insult "feminazis" and generally get their primitive, ignorant knee-jerk reactions on. Nice work. Oh and also, the female commenters are rushing to support the opinions of their idiot colleagues, lest they seem weak, lest they appear to actually care about their own gender and issues around equality. The horror!

Pathetic.

I signed this petition.

Also Adam, don't worry about Ver..blubblin or whatever. He obviously got his heart broken is SF.

Anyway, this is a funny idea, but apparently the workers at the plant aren't too flattered, because it's really a very advanced facility and they're very proud of it. They don't want it to be associated with crap.

Yeah, people like that exist, but this letter pretty much screamed "fake." There's a memorable bit about his swimming the San Francisco Bay drunk--except he says he "swam the Golden Gate" while drunk.

I don't know...I live in SF and I have no idea what he's talking about. If he's talking about the SF Bay, he's lying. Hypothermia, anyone?

Anyway, the letter is rambling and bizarre and although I am not a "fake" caller-outer by reflex, this one is pure random crap.

I don't see how this study paints conservatives in a positive light; if anything, it paints them as jerks. What's the problem? I'd rather be unhappy about inequality than ignorant and smug any day. She said, smugly.

Re grammar: "of data" is not at issue. The determining phrase is "12 terabytes-worth."

If the terabytes were considered plural rather than a mass of information, the plural construction would be fine. But it's actually "terabytes-worth," which is a singular concept. It's the worth that is the problem. If you dropped it, you could argue either way, I think.

You probably won't see this, Alex, but to answer your question, yes, they compensated my family well for everything, but at the end of the day (month) my mother judged it an unequivocal fail. Just not worth it.

"Also, my grandmother died...so that helped."

Ugh. People are actually justifying killing a couple of petty thieves who posed no physical threat.

I find some of the voices here shocking and sad. It seems the notion that these two dead men were PEOPLE, who didn't try to hurt anyone physically, is being lost. I guess none of the hard-liners has ever known or been related to someone who was on the wrong path and made mistakes like stealing. If not, allow me: they're PEOPLE. They don't deserve to be annihilated. Get a clue, and some humanity if there's any left.

Then a dragon you are. Gender is a construct that speaks to how we feel, who we feel we are. This man was born a biological female and always felt that his true gender was male. He changed everything in his life and went through what was no doubt a great deal of trauma to live as he felt. It was not a publicity prank, or a whim, or an attempt to insult any of you. If he could skipped the whole transgendered thing, I'm sure he would have, as it obviously draws a lot of hate.

He now lives as a man, feels like a man, and common sense says to refer to him as one.

The fact that he utilized his still-existing biological organs to create a family doesn't change his gender or his right to define it.

Honestly, aren't there better things to hate on in this world than people who are different than you, who define themselves differently? It does not seem like a tall order to respect their choices and leave them alone.

It's not insulting to leave food in a place where people can decide whether or not to take it. How is that insulting? Would you also refuse to donate used clothing? Do you insist on buying fresh new shirts for your homeless friends? Nonsense.

Nobody has to eat anything they don't want to. Leaving food instead of tossing it is a basically neutral act; i.e., it can't hurt. And if someone's hungry and wants it, then it helps.

And as for the question of whether encouraging "replating" will draw more homeless people to SF, well, that's just silly. Nobody relocates for half a carton of chicken fried rice.

Then again...mmm, chicken fried rice.

Yeah, you don't want to do that unless you aren't really attached to your possessions or your house. My house was used for the movie "Heartburn" with Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson many years ago, and some of the damage was not really fixable. You can't, say, just repaint a huge gouge in an heirloom piano.

I'm not sure about the "i'm disappointed in you" tack. Seems like it could just send a message that the kid is deficient, rather than in charge of being a force of good in the world based on her own sense of responsibility. To do no wrong because others might shame you does not seem like the right strategy.

Well played, Nobel prize committee. I like the harsh/reverent quality of the statement about no suitable living contenders.

I just realized, Mr. P, that you have roped us all into an online version of an endless, mind-numbing, unwelcome sell. Well played, sir.