As part of my job, I regularly travel and over the last couple of years or so, I’ve been traveling pretty often. I’ve had the privilege to travel pretty widely across the US and abroad and I fully know how fortunate I am to have this opportunity. While sometimes exhausting, it’s a perk for me to get to go to some pretty cool places, meet a variety of people, and see and do some amazing things. I’ve also broadened my personal travel, largely due to the overall comfort level I’ve developed with travel in general, thanks to my job. Like lots of other people, I post pics to social media here and there of my travels and I’m sure it can look quite glamorous at times. Being totally honest, sometimes it is. 🙂 I’ve been to some exceptional restaurants where I have enjoyed some spectacular meals. I’ve embraced the notion of trying all sorts of new foods and most of it has been delicious. I’ve picked up phrases and bits in all sorts of other languages (jack of all trades, master of none), learned things about various cultures, and best of all, I have had many incredible experiences and seen many iconic/historic/inspiring things. Like the Colosseum and other antiquities in Rome, the Parthenon and the Acropolis in Athens, the Eiffel Tower and so much more in Paris, the beaches where we stormed the shore on D-Day in WWII, the Empire State Building, the wonders of Yellowstone National Park, the beaches of Hawaii, Big Ben and Windsor Palace in England, the Liberty Bell, the Golden Gate Bridge, and Anne Frank’s house in Amsterdam. As incredible as those experiences and sights have been, the process of getting to and from these places is anything but glamorous. Whoever said “getting there is half the fun” never had to fly smushed up in an economy seat for 9+ hours. For me, being there (or being back home) is 100% of the fun. Getting there and back is just a necessary evil until we invent a better form of travel. Question: The writer thinks that others on social media: Options: - would not like to do the same work   - admire his work   - not enough information   - do not appreciate his work === The correct answer is
admire his work

I never have feed a baby something that they shouldn’t have but I know of an instance where someone did… A neighbor of Mine was babysitting for her granddaugther. The mother had placed a water bottle filled with VODKA in the refrigerator. The grandmother used that VODKA to fill the bottle with the powder added. At some point after the baby wouldn’t drink the bottle (because of the taste I imagine) but had drank some the Grandmother realized it was Vodka instead of WATER. She gave the baby Powdered Charcoal and the baby vomited the milk mix up. The baby was Ok and no harm done. She was lucky to have the powdered charcoal around. It is hard to find now in the stores. When I was a child (50’s-60) it was common for All medicine chests to be supplied with Charcoal. I still keep some of that in My medicine chest. I live in a rural area. It would take me 45 minutes to get to a Medical facility. An ambulance takes 14 minutes to get to my house and 45 minutes to get to a hospital. Now I can say that I have feed babies things that are not recommended at their age. For example, If a baby is not getting full feeling off of just formula, I would make rice cereal and feed the baby that. Some babies are just to big to be satisfied on just milk. Rice is a good filler and does No harm. (like I would not use wheat cereal) I also would give a baby warm tea when they had a stomach ache. Tea of course has caffeine in it. That would not be considered kosher. I also feed My grand daughters sweet tea. They love it. it is better than many sugary corn syrup infested drinks other chose for their children. I use 3/4 cup of sugar for every 2 gallons, so it is NOT much sugar. Question: Why did the Grandmother give the baby powdered charcoal? Options: - The baby drank vodka.   - The baby had a stomach ache.   - The baby did not want to drink anymore.   - not enough information === The correct answer is
The baby drank vodka.

Out of boredom, two scientists from the New Contagious Diseases Research Centre devised themselves a new game. One day, as a result of the suspension of a research project dealing with a dynamically mutating vaccine following the pattern of the eyesocket flu bacillus, they had absolutely nothing to do until the end of the day, because the boss didn't order them to wash test-tubes. They decided to play a game of hockey under the microscope. For a puck they used one of the millions of experimental bacillus, and one-arm pincettes, which as it happened also resembled hockey sticks, served as sticks. The bacillus was not happy with it at all. It wanted to rest after an exhausting task involving vaccine discouragement, and these whitecoats here planned to put it to work yet again. And this time the work was much more labor-intensive and even more exhausting than before, but the condition and health of the tired bacillus not as good as in the times of youth, about two hours ago. The scientists got excited. On a microscope slide they etched a hockey rink with laser, agreed on the rules, connected the microscope's camera to the big screen display and played until the morning. They had to change pucks several times, but that was fine, they had millions of them in stock. The next day they didn't have anything to do either and they continued to play. They even invited other colleagues and the popularity of the game was so huge they could afford to play it in a championship system. Soon, the games were joined by the guys from the car-repair garage next door. They were tough opponents and even tougher fans - they took from the lab and carried away with them several flasks and some equipment, as it turned out - to set up their own game station in pit number 5. Question: Where did the first game take place? Options: - In the lab   - not enough information   - In a colleague's office   - In the garage === The correct answer is

In the lab