unicorn

Wow. That's amazing--and unexpected. Better than a study, this is a meta-analysis, which combines multiple randomized clinical studies, and is the highest form of evidence available. Although perhaps difficult to believe at first, and contrary to traditional thinking, this appears to be the truth.

He looks great with his shirt off, but I feel his face is rather unfortunate. What do you think?

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/giorgi-tzane-janelidze-fitness-influencer-dead-at-23/ 😪 "Fitness influencer Giorgi ‘Tzane’ Janelidze died after falling into a ravine while filming social media content in Italy. According to Greek outlet Ethnos, the Wednesday, March 13, accident occurred while Janelidze was standing on a balcony without a railing, where he slipped and fell into the ravine...". What kind of a balcony doesn't have a railing???

When communicating, one has to agree on a language and certain definitions. If one just defines words as what one imagines in one's head, chaos can ensue. The US actually defines a forest as having a minimum of 1 acre in size. While agree that this seems quite small, I can certainly abide by the UN definition which is 1/2 hectare. https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/definitions.cfm?i=51 Forest land. Land at least 120 feet wide and 1 acre in size with at least 10 percent cover (or equivalent stocking) by live trees of any size, including land that formerly had such tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated. Forest land includes transition zones, such as areas between forest and non-forest lands that have at least 10 percent cover (or equivalent stocking) with live trees and forest areas adjacent to urban and built-up lands. Roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt strips of trees must have a crown width of at least 120 feet and continuous length of at least 363 feet to qualify as forest land. Unimproved roads and trails, streams, and clearings in forest areas are classified as forest if they are less than 120 feet wide or an acre in size. Tree-covered areas in agricultural production settings, such as fruit orchards, or tree-covered areas in urban settings, such as city parks, are not considered forest land.

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines a forest as, "Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban use." https://www.fao.org/3/I8661EN/i8661en.pdf Since 8 acres is 3.24 hectares, that would seem to qualify assuming the trees are at least 5 meters high, with a canopy cover of more than 10%.

I believe it's still illegal to call the Ukraine War a war in Russia. But I don't think neither you nor Putin will be arrested. 😉

We've been considering using a wedding planner, but most of the planners in this area don't seem to want to pick up their phone. One planner wants to charge US $6000, but states she won't answer the phone, and that she could take 72 business hours to answer any e-mails. Is this the norm? I'm not sure what all of that money is going towards if it's just putting up a barrier of communication with a "Don't call us, we'll call you" attitude. They can't even afford a part-time (say 1 PM to 5 PM daily) receptionist? How helpful are these people? Would you use one if you had to do it again?

Any interest in such a string?

News to me! 😄

This review website also documents the nonexistent customer service. They have a few 5* reviews, but almost all of those were written by "1st-time reviewers," which shows the company is dishonest in addition to being disreputable. https://www.trustpilot.com/review/traveloka.com

These 3rd party websites often have nonexistent customer service, and this one is no exception: https://www.reviews.io/company-reviews/store/traveloka Almost everyone gives them the bottom rating. I personally think you'd be loco to use traveloka...

??? I guess you didn't even look at the graph you yourself put up. The exponential rise occurred during Trump's presidency, and the data on that graph stop before Biden even took office. So your dumb-ass argument completely shows the opposite of what you intended it to. Truth be told, the accidental deaths happened because of the rise in fentanyl adulteration in illegal drugs, not because of any presidential policies. That being said, Trump was POTUS up through 2020, so your graph would imply the opposite of your contention.

Talking about mysterious deaths. we may be hearing about a suspicious death from one of our members soon. 😬

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/2/russia-to-boost-size-of-armed-forces-by-170000-troops "...Russia had undertaken various efforts to give a boost to its army – including drafting conscripts... All Russian men from age 18 to 27 (or age 18-30 starting on January 1, 2024) must serve one year in the military...". https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-signs-decree-autumn-military-conscription-2023-09-29/#:~:text=The new legislation comes into,but undisclosed casualties in Ukraine. "Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree setting out the routine autumn conscription campaign, calling up 130,000 citizens for statutory military service, a document posted on the government website showed on Friday. All men in Russia are required to do a year-long military service between the ages of 18 and 27, or equivalent training while in higher education. Putin's move comes as Russia's armed forces press on with their "special military operation" in Ukraine, now in its 20th month... The president, who signed an order in March calling up 147,000 people for the spring campaign, said this month he was bracing for a long war in Ukraine. In July Russia's lower house of parliament voted to raise the maximum age at which men can be conscripted to 30 from 27. The new legislation comes into effect on Jan. 1, 2024...".

This nut has been to all countries on the planet:

I can only wonder if a visit to Yemen will be possible during my lifetime... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Yemen

Maybe someone who didn't want to die in the fields of Ukraine?

I always thought that he was the most ridiculous figure ever in the history of the planet. And the name of the 2nd largest city also cracks me up: Bimbo. I suspect it's a country I'll never visit. Of the countries I wouldn't visit today, but would like to someday if the political climate improves, I'd probably like to see Iran, Burma, and Yemen's Socotra Island the most. I'd rather see Socotra Island:

That seems unlikely, if one's to believe the surveillance footage. Putin seems to like to murder people in spectacular, outrageous ways, to leave no doubt that he did it, and will do it again with impunity if he so wishes. Putin likes to murder openly, with the aim to instill fear as much as to silence any vocal opponents.

If you were truly putting posts up because you were interested in finding out more about the procedure from a scientific/medical perspective, then I apologize. Unfortunately, that's not how your posts came off to me. In particular, the post in which you wrote: "Really? Objectively measuring and comparing sensitivity between 2 groups is silly? And you pray science?" came off as hostile and provocative. I felt similarly about the post in which you implied that men who'd had circumcisions as adults couldn't possibly remember what sex was like before they developed the condition which forced them to have a circumcision. I found it difficult to believe that you actually believed that contention as well. I do feel these specious arguments are quite similar to those who make false claims about the election being stolen, by using bogus videos or other "evidence" purporting to show election workers cheating. Those who made those false claims were tried and convicted, and had to compensate their victims. When examined with an unbiased mind, the facts will ultimately win out. Trump has so far been able to use legal machinations to avoid his criminal trials so far, but probably will eventually get his just deserts. It certainly gets tiring to keep hearing the same bogus arguments, promulgated by those who embrace either willful ignorance, or intentional deceit. These false statements have all been discredit by scientific scrutiny. One of my prior links has references to the multiple studies on these matters. Circumcision does not cut the nerves going to the glans, nor does it cause any form of sexual dysfunction (impotence, premature ejaculation, difficulties with orgasm, and so on). Anyone who maintains otherwise is either ignoring the science or willfully lying. The health benefits of circumcision have also been well-documented by countless studies, and accepted by professional medical societies. Ultimately, of course, most parents simply opt to choose to consent or decline the procedure based on the appearance of the father's genitals--and that's fine. No one is suggesting that parents be vilified for declining the procedure.

The fact that he came in alone, then returned and came back alone, seems to point to suicide. If so, one has to wonder why he went to the trouble of getting rid of his identification documents. That comes off as perhaps rather passive-aggressive to me.

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking where Thai same-sex partners can marry nearest to Thailand. While legal in most of the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand, there is so far only one country in Asia (Taiwan) and one country in Africa (South Africa) which allow same-sex marriage. You can find more information on Wikipedia. My understanding is that in Asia, Japan and Cambodia are the most likely to legalize same-sex marriage next. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage Countries in dark blue have full same-sex marriage on an equivalent basis to gender-divergent marriage: Among those countries which do not require visas for Thai citizens (in green), it looks as though the main choices are Taiwan, South Africa, or various South American countries. If a Thai person were to marry a citizen of one of the dark blue countries above, in most cases he'd be allowed to live there permanently, and eventually become a citizen if he stayed clean of the law. If a Thai person were to marry a citizen of the US, EU, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, he would carry two passports which would be very powerful indeed, since he could visit almost every country without a visa, with the exception of some truly weird ones one would never want to visit anyway, such as Venezuela, Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, and the Central African Empire (I mean Republic 😉).

I also felt that Emma Stone was hands-down the best actress in a leading role. A lot of pundits thought they'd give the Oscar to Lily Gladstone, since no Oscar has yet gone to a Native American woman, and it seemed there was political pressure to make history. However, I think there was little question but that ES's role was far more challenging than LG's character, and ES showed a wider array of emotion and talent. LG did fine, but I definitely felt ES outshone her competition. Kudos to the Academy for doing the right thing (at least IMHO).

Well, not quite objective since obviously this was not a blinded study. Also, even if the results are accurate, and not just someone trying to prove a point, they're absolutely meaningless since the real-life facts from men who've actually had the procedure rule out any significance to the findings. The myth of any significant loss of sensitivity has been thoroughly discredited from multiple real-life studies. Removing the foreskin does not, as he suggests, damage the nerves going to the glans. What a pile of crap! Someone simply doesn't know the basic anatomy (prepuce refers to the foreskin): As usual, just a bunch of BS from people trying to confuse others with outright lies. Reminds me of those MAGA idiots: