jgoo

No idea but from what I can see Callipygian is no longer listed as a member and some posts I have just seen that he has made in the past has him listed as Guest_callipygian_* so perhaps his member status was changed by his request or made by the powers that be? And perhaps somehow that may also be related to why the recent thread is gone? I guess only Oz knows for sure and will share with us if he cares to.

If only we can have Calvin and Hobbes back as well....

Curious as to the possible sentence and fine he is facing if he is extradited and convicted. I haven't found anything on line that indicates what it might be. I hope it is pretty hefty fine and an appropriate time behind bars. Hunting for survival/food is understandable but I just can't grasp the whole hunting for trophy. It really turns my stomach to see the pictures of this guy smiling over various of his "kills".

Whether or not this makes one feel safer, part of the safety protocol is random drug and alcohol testing of air traffic controllers. Clearly no system is foolproof but hopefully because it so rare, as RA1 alludes to, the system seems to be working pretty well (hopefully). My understanding is if the test result goes above 1/4 the typical legal limit for driving a car, the controller is removed from duty. Not sure if the numbers are current or not, but I think that means above .02%. If above 1/2 the typical legal limit for driving a car, the controller is subject to arrest. Those that are given random testing are those in a position with "critical safety or security sensitive responsibilities"

It's certainly interesting....and I have to wonder if he feared him because of some explicit threat (which it seems because he feared for his safety apparently) or just because he felt at some perceived risk because of the power of Geffen to somehow influence his life (perhaps cutting off revenue streams from other wealthy individuals)? Although I suppose it is possible, it just seems to be a bit far fetched that someone like Geffen would make physical threats against someone. But again, anything is possible For those interested, his stage name is Justin Matthews and plenty of videos of him available, both as a top and bottom. As a bottom: http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5596ce683ff10 As a top: http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=2088676164

If I remember correctly, Craigslist used to have a section similar to what Backpage has where escorts advertised under Adult Services or something like that (I think first it was called Erotic Services if memory serves then changed to Adult Services before being closed). Their decision came after pressure from various state attorney generals threatened them with action related to fostering prostitution, human trafficking, child endangering/abuse, etc. I don't recall if there was any similar threats from or against the credit card companies. This all happened around 2009 so it is interesting that it has taken this long for it to be an issue for Backpage. One may think that some agreement will come about where Backpage will follow what Craigslist did and shut down that one particular section of their site. While losing quite a bit of revenue (and it may in fact be quite more than just a bit) from that particular section, it would seem like the only real option for them in order to keep themselves viable overall. As far as the regular dedicated escort sites, like Rentboy and Rentmen for gay escorts, if they get on the radar and are targeted then it would seem they are at significant risk. The only thing that I can think of is that those sites have a dedicated staff for review of ads to assure some standards are met that would avoid the issue of it directly fostering prostitution. Of course it is the idea that one is only paying for ones time and not sexual services. Rentboy, the only one I checked, at least makes a specific attempt to specify this before entering their site (more explicitly than Backpage currently does when entering their section for male escorts). THIS SITE MAY NOT BE USED FOR THE ADVERTISING OF SEXUAL SERVICES OR TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF MONEY FOR SEX OR OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. The question is whether or not that is sufficient to avoid the fate Backpage has found itself in

Any surprises for any of you? http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2015/06/30/ranking-churches-on-acceptance-of-homosexuality-plus-their-reactions-to-scotus-ruling/ Religious groups have shown a wide range of reactions to U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry. There are some who have applauded the decision. Others have vehemently disagreed with the ruling as an audacious attempt to redefine marriage. There have also been some religious communities that have remained mum. One reason: differences in opinion among their members. Sociologists and political scientists who research clergy have repeatedly found that religious leaders are most likely to make public pronouncements on politics when their religious communities are unified. We see something similar on the question of same-sex marriage. This first graph shows how some of the larger U.S. religious groups have responded to theSupreme Court decision. Each group has positions on marriage and sexuality; most have additional statements on LGBT rights. Most groups made a statement immediately after last week’s ruling, but some did not. If you know of a public statement that I missed, let me know via twitter: @tobingrant The graph shows the response to the ruling and also the general acceptance of homosexuality among members in each church, denomination, or religion. Each bar is the percentage of each group that believe that homosexuality should be accepted by society. The data may under-state acceptance of homosexuality (because the data is from 2007), but 1) comparisons of groups to recent on same-sex marriage suggest that the change is small, and 2) the relative differences between religious groups remains the same. The graph shows that public agreement with the Supreme Court was common among groups that have large majorities of members who believe that homosexuality should be accepted. Unitarians, atheists (I used American Atheists as the group), reform & conservative Jews, and United Church of Christ applauded the ruling. Public pronouncements become less common for groups in which a majority is accepting of homosexuality, but there remains a large minority that is not. These groups have clear statements on how they understand marriage, sexuality, ecclesiology, but they were silent on the Supreme Court ruling. Most of these churches approach LGBT issues in ways that do not neatly fall into the categories of affirming or exclusion. United Methodists allow LGBT Christians to be members but “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” cannot be clergy, and same-sex marriage cannot be performed. Other groups, such as Lutherans (ELCA) and Disciples of Christ, the question of same-sex marriage is left to individual congregations to decide. Catholics are unique on this issue. The bishops uphold the position of the church. There is more of a disconnect between American Catholics and the church on this issue. As I show in the next graph, Catholics who see a conflict between tradition and modern society are far less accepting of homosexuality (see graph below). Churches are likely to publicly disagree with the court decision if their members are less accepting of homosexuality. Southern Baptists, Latter-Day Saints, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and others quickly responded to the court’s decision, making their disagreement clear. There were many other evangelical churches that also made statements, but they couldn’t be shown because they are too small to have enough members in the survey. Historically black denominations were the exception. Only COGIC made a statement on the ruling. Among National Baptists, for example, the association leaves decisions to individual congregations but has taken a public position on marriage, both as a theological matter and a practical one (e.g., the position of military chaplains). This second admittedly-rainbow-colored graph ranks over 40 religious groups on their members’ views of homosexuality. It includes groups that could not be included on the first graph because they are collections of churches without one clear organizational voice. I also include 1) the position of all Catholics and 2) a breakdown of eight different types of Catholics (see explanation here). The graph is colored to show the broader religious tradition of the group. The graph shows, Nearly all Unitarians, Buddhists, Jews (with the exception of the orthodox), and the so-called “nones” are accepting of homosexuality. Evangelicals and most the historically black denominations are the least accepting of homosexuality. Also in the “discourage, don’t accept” camp are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter-Day Saints, Pietists (e.g., Mennonites), and Seventh Day Adventists (which some consider evangelical). Mainline denominations range from being divided over sexuality (e.g., United Methodists) to be affirming (e.g., United Church of Christ). In general, U.S. Catholics say that homosexuality should be accepted by society. This is true for many of the types of Catholics included in the graph. Traditional Catholics, however, are the exception.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/us/feat-jupiter-venus-conjunction/ (CNN)Put down the cell phone. Go outside. Look up. Tuesday night, Jupiter and Venus will culminate a month-long dance with what astronomers say will be a dazzling display, appearing just a fraction of a degree apart from one another in the night sky -- a show that some astronomers say could account for the "Star of Bethlehem" mentioned in the Bible. "To the eye they'll look like a double star," Sky & Telescope editor Kelly Beatty said on the magazine's website. To see the lineup, look to the west-northwest shortly after sunset. This isn't a particularly rare event; such conjunctions are fairly frequent, thanks to how Earth and the two planets line up in the solar system, according to Sky & Telescope. iReporter Lonna Ours took these photos of Venus and Jupiter on June 21. The two planets are moving closer together throughout the month of June and will eventually appear to converge. EXPAND IMAGE But the combination of how close the planets will appear -- one-third of a degree -- the viewing angle at many latitudes and the time of day make this a particularly special event that ranks "very highly" among conjunctions, Rice University astronomer Patrick Hartigan wrote on his website. Although the planets will appear to draw near one another in August and again in October, the next such event to rival Tuesday night's won't happen until 2023, he said. And although the two planets will appear to be close together, in reality, millions of miles of empty space separate them.

I can't help but read some of the dissenting opinions, for no other purpose than to challenge myself in how I may see things and the opinions I have formed. In this case, specifically, the dissenting opinions hold very little challenge. For those who want to have a good head shaking, this may provide that: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/06/26/3674385/dissent-marriage-equality/ Although the article says it is hysterical, I can't help but not find it all that funny in the way these guys think and what they understand.

I am not in the least bit apprehensive on the pending outcome. As with all major cases with such an expected close call as this one, there is a level of uncertainty but everything I have read from the questions asked and answered, challenges/follow-ups made and responded to points to the outcome expected and for me the uncertainty is very low at this point. I didn't see anything in the Lawrence vs Texas decision, which Kennedy wrote for the majority, that would make me think otherwise. In fact, the part where he writes " Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress" gives some strong insight into how he may vote. One can not discount the likelihood that Kennedy realizes he has a singular opportunity to make history in a way that will define his legacy, and that may (for right or wrong) impact his thought and decision process. I would not be surprised if he is the one who wrote the majority opinion when the decision comes out.

wow, he is fantastic....thanks for sharing that and it made my day to hear such a talented (and really cute) guy do justice to that song. Only bad thing is that it is a sad reminder of such a wasted talent in Whitney

I would not be opposed to it going even further....anyone who hasn't lived abroad in some of the areas that are a direct threat to us and don't understand the value of the Patriot Act are, in my opinion, totally naïve and are clueless as to how important this is to our existence. Don't fool yourself and think in idealistic terms....the threats and dangers are very very real.

The article is very narrow in what it is considering. I don't think it is wrong, as presented, and makes sense that an older average aged group will establish a higher hurdle to overcome to replenish its ranks. If one steps back a bit, there may be some broader considerations to think about that certainly can change the picture and influence future elections. First, what are the numbers related to shifting from one party to another over time and as one ages. It would be interesting to see what that happens to the math when one considers that aspect. The second is cyclical nature of politics with favorite parties in and out of power, and identification with that group. The third is the rise of the independents and relative leanings toward one party or another, which also seems to be cyclical and makes one consider some other underlying driver not identified that perhaps makes the age "problem" less significant compared to that shift....that more people are identifying as independent. However it certainly seems that this specific problem is much more significant at this point in time for the Republicans. Beyond that, what is important to consider is the age distribution of the independents and their leanings which will certainly make the difference for future elections . From the graphs below there are some interesting things to be gleemed from some historical polling.....

Certainly the jury being open to the possibility of giving a death sentence makes the standard polls of attitudes of the general public in the area not as relevant. But I don't necessarily think it really makes it more or less a bias towards giving that sentence.....just that the possibility exists rather than automatically precluding that possibility by having someone on the jury who is not open to the option, not matter what. I do, however, think that there is both that aspect of being open to the possibility AND the relevant facts of the specifics in the case that should be considered as to why the death sentence was determined to be justified by the jury. Clearly there is quite a bit of evidence that we, the general public, are not or may not be fully aware of as it was presented in the trial. Some of it may be of an emotional impact (i.e. autopsy details, photos, etc) but certainly it comes down to facts in evidence that the juror has to consider. On the merits of the case and how the charges were structured by the government, it is not surprising (at least to me) that they came back with the death penalty.

As I expected, he has been sentenced to death (on at least some of the charges)....just announced by CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/15/us/boston-bombing-tsarnaev-sentence/index.html

One of the reasons, I believe, Hillary is "winning" at this moment is simply because she is pretty much the only viable active Democratic nominee and there is just too much noise and confusion on the Republican side. In general, many people don't have a clue as to the details of the Republican candidates yet and things will really get heated up once there is some clarity on the Republican side. The "what if" scenarios of one specific Republican candidate vs Hillary is really diluted because of the field (people can't ignore that aspect at this point). So the real question in my mind is not that she is "winning" but is that current margin really as big as one would expect? I would submit six points ahead of Bush and Rubio, and only three ahead of Paul is not that great at this point in time.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/

Welcome to the site sparkles....where in Florida are you located? And when you access your account, there are two places where your username shows up on the page when in the forum. The one at the top of the page (on the right) and then the second one is just below the Flirt 4 Free banner at the top of the forum listings (on the right). Just to clarify that the process described above is accessed through the second username. The first one doesn't have a drop down but the second one does.

It seems that the trend to charge for checked luggage, which encourages carry ons, has helped motivate this design change. I can see that it is something those that prefer to do carry ons would be happy about. As someone who almost always checks in baggage, I just will likely be more annoyed and delayed by all the additional carry ons. So I guess it comes from ones own perspective whether this is a good thing or not.

Alot does not jive with my experience and I agree the self reporting makings the results dubious at best. And is there considered a standard way of measuring so it is consistent? I also noticed and did not get past the flaccid of the US which had 10cm and when I toggled to inches it was 3inches. Well 3 inches is not 10cm so I lost all confidence in all numbers.

Most recent polls on a national average show a general support of the death penalty at roughly the same level (around 60%). The particulars of any specific case may result in results that are higher or lower. While the chances of getting the unanimous vote for death is a high hurdle, it still does happen on occasion and with sufficient numbers based on past events. A statistic on federal death penalty cases that reached the jury decision point, roughly 34% were sentences to death and considering that a unanimous decision is needed, 1 in 3 death sentences is significant overall. However, focusing in on this particular case, in my opinion it seems to me to have a very high probability of clearing the hurdle. Taking out emotions (which is not often realistic to do), the question will be if the mitigating circumstances can sway the jurors sufficiently to counter sufficiently the aggravating circumstances and victim impact. This is where the issue such as manipulation and brainwashing will be part of the mitigating argument. I don't think loyalty would be a very useful argument for that as the defense wants to focus on his brother's actions and his efforts being the primary driving factor in using his younger brother. Ultimately the only "poll" that matters is the results from the jurors and I am sure both sides were very much aware of this during the selection process.

The legal argument is not about loyalty but rather about the one brother being "brainwashed", for lack of a better word, by the older more influential brother. The similarities is to use the reasoning of someone else with greater power and/or influence to be an excuse for the behavior. While there may be a general believe against the death penalty in New England, there are enough polls suggesting support in this particular case (and as in many cases with polls, certainly there are others that contradict that) so it may be a case of general vs specific. http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/massachusetts-residents-confident-2014

The only thing I can think of is that his attorney determined that it was impossible to get a not guilty verdict and by using the strategy that he did he was at most hoping that at least one person would take it as a reason to vote against conviction, leading to a hung jury and then a possible plea bargain. Or in the worst case, he was laying the foundation that his client, once convicted, should not be executed because of the undue influence of his brother. He is hoping the jurors will perceive him as a lackey and therefore should get life but shouldn't be put to death. I will be very surprised is the jury does not come back to say to put him to death.

Perhaps he fancies himself some type of royalty...as in an old queen. That could make sense.

There is no standard, from what I can tell, about what participation should be or not should be. Perhaps Oz could clarify that issue for us. And I am not sure who can really judge what is positive or negative. If I agree with someone then perhaps that is perceived as positive but if I disagree then negative. Does that necessarily mean the views are not valid? As the pope says....who am I to judge? And while I may sense some posters and members are very negative, I don't feel it negates their "right" to participate in any way they see fit. I have seen plenty of insults back and forth so I can't say that many members can take the high road on that basis. Sure, some have said that they only do it when they have been insulted first, but the fact remains that it is something that they have done. One perosn's troublemaker is another person's though provoker....comes from one's own bias and perspective. Do they have a right? Yes they do, until the owner of this site whose playground it is says they don't. I certainly can't make that decision and I don't feel any other member has that right to make the decision.