Posted on 08/29/2006 5:13:04 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Impossible to miss them since they spam here almost every day.
"Love Birds do better in pairs. Get your friend a friend."
With great respect, that is a common myth. It's true that lovebirds need companionship. But so long as their human owner pays them a lot of attention, the lovebird bonds with him and considers him his/her mate. If you get two lovebirds, they bond with each other and tend to ignore their human owners.
I give Tukki tons of love and affection. He is most definitely bonded with me, as I am with him. One sure sign of his bonding - he even tries to feed me! He does his little regurgitation routine - normal for parrots - and tries to put it in his mouth. Sounds gross but is actually very touching. That is the classic behavior of a lovebird toward its mate.
Here's a link about to an authoritative book on lovebirds:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764118277/002-3880507-7129634?v=glance&n=283155
You'll note that the very first item in the 'description' section is: "Lovebirds are social birds, but it is a myth that they must always be kept in pairs as a tame single bird can make a wonderul companion."
Glad to hear that, glgb! And OldFriend says Rush discussed it yesterday. I regret not getting to listen to Rush very often because of work. Another reason FR is so valuable!
I know Rush is "on the cutting edge of societal evolution" but don't know how Rush could have discussed these two items yesterday, since they appeared for the first time on today's op-ed page!
The story about the wages not being real was reported on CNN the other day.
exactly, maybe the times should raise wages for all its lower level employees by imposing a tax on the pay of the executives and lead by example.
LOL! Just repeating what OF claimed in post #15. Maybe Rush was just giving the NY Times another well deserved bashing yesterday.
Spin the world faster, the sane segment of our sociaty wants the Times to fly off into space!
As the economy headed toward full employment, entry-level jobs are pulled in, and the wage mean goes down. If recession were to ensue, then these lower-rung jobs would be the first to go, and the wage mean would rise.
Would the NYT then see the plight of the poor on the rise?
Ah, I see. Come to think of it, I recall Rush mentioning something about that too yesterday. I thought you were suggesting Rush specifically mentioned the Times editorial. Sorry for the confusion.
Got a raise, but not really. Good job, not really!!
The DNC talking points make their rounds and everyone marches in lockstep.
Darn those ingenious Republicans, appealing to "mainstream notions of fairness"! How unfair!
What's unfair is that the Republicans have stolen that tactic from the Democrat playbook, and the Times editorialist is thus highly offended. ;)
Of course that's it and you're right. Those pesky talking points have a way of being regurgitated for days on end! ;-)
Perhaps if "Putz" Sulzberger spent on his employees some of the $850,000,000 he's spending on his new office things would look brighter.
The skunks at the slimes are contributing to the WORST ECOMONY IN ( you fill in the number of years here, you choices are A) 75 years B) 100 years or C) 235 years)They are doing so by laying off people. Why don't they cut CEO salaries and save the "average worker's )job! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.