lookin

No breakfast today for the West Coast viewers!

Next time leave your webcam on and click the "AutoReview" button. It'll be posted before the door hits him in the ass!

Aha! I found his bio in my browser cache. Make that 7". I seem to remember them bigger than they actually are. Imagine that! http://www.flirt4free.com/models/?model_id...hat&small=1

Wish I could tell you he's right outside your door, but I stumbled across him yesterday on Flirt4Free. I think he's Russian and that usually means St. Petersburg. Can't recall height and weight, but there was an 8" in there somewhere. He had one review, a four-star, and it said he preferred to chat and was shy about showing his butt. Still, I like to think that if you were in St. Petersburg, you could reason with him.

I agree with BiBottomBoy, Lucky, and others who like the site as it is. Of all the websites I visit, this is the most tastefully designed. The only thing I'd change is that fire-engine red border around the Flirt4Free models. Rather than Red (#FF0000), why not try DarkRed (#8B0000) or FireBrick (#B22222) instead? It would still pop, but wouldn't be such an an island of tacky in a sea of good taste. Another country heard from.

At last I understand the question you're asking. I'm no expert, but this guy is: http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/tips/25.htm He says to optimize for 1024*768, but use a liquid design with percentage widths to control layout. That way, almost everyone will have a good experience, no matter their screen size or browser settings. Since you asked, my screen size is currently 1280*800. But I can't tell you what it will be next month, when I hope Apple will release new laptops. And I'll want Xerx to look good when I spring for an iPhone too. So here's a vote for liquid design!

:rolleyes: Popping my cork as we speak! :rolleyes:

When a bow just isn't enough . . . (That's me on the right!)

You'll have to pin the Blue Ribbon on AdamSmith for that one; I missed it entirely. And once again you've sent me trundling off to the dictionary, this time for moue: A small grimace; a pout Awfully sorry if my fun causes you any distress. I'll be checking each post from now on for inadvertent doggerel or anything that jingles. You did remind me, however, of a favorite piece of graffiti, floating above a urinal in the Tenderloin some twenty years ago: I'm not going to do it, that's all there is to it. Oops! I've done it again. Thanks for the memories!

Au contraire! In fact, I was hoping you'd join me at Martha's upcoming Chile Reception; assuming, of course, I can do something with this drooping derrière.

In 1957, Ford showed off its nuclear-powered concept car, the Ford Nucleon. Rumors swirled that GM was close behind with its Chevy Chernobyl.

Missed the show, so I'm playing catch up, but would relish any tips she had for sagging buns.

Howdy, There may be better way, but here's a way that works for me. Pick the chunk you want to respond to and type [qu0te] at the beginning of that chunk and then type [/qu0te] at the end of that chunk. (Except spell "quote" the right way with "o" instead of "0"; I had to misspell it, or my words would have appeared in quotes.) Then you can type your response to that chunk. When you're ready to quote the next chunk, just type [qu0te] at the beginning of the chunk and [/qu0te] at the end of the chunk, and it will appear in quotes. As you noticed, when you hit the "reply" button, the [qu0te] and [/qo0te] commands are inserted for you automatically, but for the entire post you're responding to. To break it into chunks, you have to insert the extra [qu0te] and [/qu0te] commands yourself. Far out! I never noticed that. I have no idea what that button does, and maybe it's the secret to a whole better process. In the meantime, thank you, I'll just enjoy flipping between red and blue. You're welcome, and happy quoting!

"I will not exaggerate its size, or minimize its potential."

To think my perversion helps foster subversion!

Personal proclivities aside, I'm not sure I understand the question. I can make the screen any size I want, up to the edges of my computer display. Which I usually do. Or are you referring to the blank spaces along the sides of the page? I hadn't really noticed until you asked the question, but this site does have more "air" around the content than most. If that's what you're asking about, I think it's fine the way it is, but I wouldn't complain if you took back some of that real estate either. If I've totally missed the point, I hope you'll ask the question again. I like the way you guys look for improvements.

Not so fast, Mister! You're not going to leave us hanging, are you, without finishing up that story? I understand if you don't want to highjack this worthy thread, so I'll follow you anywhere to hear more, except possibly that highfalutin Country Club of yours.

Your memory serves you well. You first introduced us to the 32 fouettés of Cicero in a thread about last year's membership upgrade, of all things. It was part of an elaborate highjack in English, French, and Latin, as I recall. AdamSmith joined in with quotes from Milton and a picture of a horse pissing into the dirt. I wish I could remember what forum that ended up in.

I thought it was a boy. Pretty major camel-toe if not, poor thing.

Same here. When suggestions were being taken for site improvements, mine was that log-ins be allowed directly from the forums. As far as I can tell, that's still not possible, and the only way to log in is to exit the forums, log in, and then return to the forums. The one change seems to be that I am now told that I'm logged in while I'm in the forums, even though I'm really not, until I perform the same terpsichorean maneuvers with which you have begun your day. Does keep one nimble though.

One of my favorite expressions from days gone by, "(We) must have lunch!" is a line that always makes me laugh. First time I heard it was in response to my telling a new trick how cute he was. He wanted to keep the relationship going too. The line is delivered with the emphasis on "Must", and a slight flounce of the wrist completes the effect. I guess it comes across better in person. I feel so old.

Must have lunch!

TY, thanks for sharing the email from the mystery reviewer, and your response. They're both helpful in bracketing a range of opinions about which reviews should see the light of day, and which should be hidden under a bushel basket. My own take is pretty far to one side, so I've kept it to myself thus far. But, hey, I'm in the middle of cleaning out a very dusty attic, and need a break, so here comes a minority opinion. First, for me, I'm really interested in reading what others care to share. If I'm interested in a guy, I'll read everything I can find. The worst that can happen is that I get misled with bad info. My insurance against that is to look for more than one review, and/or credible reviewers. If I can find only one review, and it doesn't have much information, or it's unrealistically positive or unrealistically negative, I figure I'm no worse off than I was before. I don't recall ever being so rushed for time that I regretted the two or three minutes it took to scan a review, no matter how useless it might prove to be. Maybe if I were one of those guys who used to spin two dozen pie plates at once on the Ed Sullivan show I'd feel trifled with but, for now, I've got a few minutes to waste reading a useless review. I can just move on. But more important than that is that I just never know what it is that's going to make the difference between hiring a guy or not. A reviewer may write no more than the fact that the guy had a warm smile and dimples, and it could be just what I wanted to hear. Or he might say only that the escort was dressed to the nines; if I'm not in the mood for a GQ type escort, that could very well send me scurrying to the next guy on my list. Sometimes the littlest detail will help tip the scale. And I don't always know in advance what's going to do the trick, so to speak. On the other hand, when I read a review that's chock full of the nitty gritty, I sometimes wonder how I'd react if I hired the guy and he said he's not really in the mood for any nitty, and I can forget all about the gritty for today. Those reviews are fun to read (and write!), but I've never looked at them as any kind of ironclad guarantee. So, I'm going to cast one lone vote for printing all the reviews that aren't obvious fakes. But I'll also acknowledge, as others have, that you're the one who sets the standards for a very helpful site, and I'll gratefully eat the kibble that's in my bowl. Thanks for the break, and back to my dusty attic!

What amazes me, and is shown so clearly in the link you posted, is the incredible effort involved in applying a centuries-old document to situations that were difficult or impossible to foresee. Of the three branches of federal government, I've always liked the Judicial branch best. They're the ones most directly involved in ensuring that we ordinary citizens continue to enjoy the freedoms and liberties promised by the Founders. If they fail, we fail. But how can they possibly keep up with all the new situations that arise, and the thousands of new laws that get on the books every year? The "Patriot Act" alone would seem a full-time job.

I think that's exactly what it means, as long as the Court finds those local laws unconstitutional. Laws mandating racially segregated schools were vigorously defended by several states, until the Supreme Court determined there was a constitutional issue involved and overturned them. Whether or not they'll ever get around to gay marriage is anybody's guess, although I wouldn't mind presenting them with a pair of briefs.