How does anyone understand a roll? It's bread, you break it, you put butter on it. Done.

So true! When someone tells me to eat at Pasta Jay's, I tune out the rest of what that person has to say about Boulder dining.

The public is perfectly capable on its own of deciding whether the reviewer is credible, or not. Don't you agree?

Had one of those Gotcha!s at Poshe nail salon in South Boulder. $30 for a mani pedi, great deal. As I was getting the pedicure the tech asked "Do you want the deluxe version? It's $5 more." Sure, give me the deluxe version. Turns out, when it's time to pay, that the deluxe pedi with a manicure isn't my $30 coupon plus $5, it's actually $55! You see, the $5 extra for the pedicure doesn't apply to special deals like the one I got. Hmm. Won't go there again.

That's your mistake -- the character's name is Hedy LaRue.

It makes perfect sense, because they've got to save enough money to pay $30,000 or $50,000 bonuses to their top administrators. Wait, are the bonuses for CU brass also 'cost-neutral?'

Remind me not to eat at this place! I already paid $180 for a horrible meal at Frasca a few weeks ago. We can do cheap casual dining reasonably well in Boulder. When a restaurateur opens a super-upscale spot like this in these parts, very often this is the result -- ho-hum food and desultory service at five-$$$$ prices. I'll pass.

Krusty, Rushed is a woman, so your line "Rushed rushed to race, didn't he?" makes no sense. But then again, your whole post makes no sense. Ralph, it's stupid EEOC policies that require all that data reporting. That's bureaucracy, plain and simple. It's one thing (and a very good thing imo) to say "It's illegal to discriminate in employment on the basis of race." I wish gays had the same Federal protection. It's another thing -- and a stupid, bureaucratic thing that, as long as we're being honest here, you were part of propagating and supporting while you worked for the EEOC -- to say "and therefore every employer has to report on the racial makeup of its workforce, once a year." That's just silliness. I agree with you that those requirements are idiotic.

Also, tell the truth, Ralph -- if you worked for the EEOC, you must know that the only time an employer would EVER have to answer that question "Must I hire a Black employee because my workforce is too heavily caucasian?" is when the workforce is already out of whack, proportionately in line with the local population. If the local population is heavily Mexican and your workforce doesn't have any (or enough) Mexican workers in it, you don't have to hire a Mexican person the next time around -- you just have to show that you made a good-faith effort to reach Mexican job applicants in your hiring efforts. But I'm sure you knew that.

Oh please, Ralph. If it were up to you, employers could choose not to hire Black people just because they didn't feel like working around Black people. Your 'freedom' doesn't sound that great to a lot of us.

Would you say that for other crimes? We get photos of people accused of bank robbery, assault, etc. Why would it be any different for this type of crime? Can you show us all the cases where people were accused of sexual crimes on minors and later acquitted?