lookin

I suppose you've considered knockout drops? Failing that, why not just ask him what it would take for him to act a little friendlier? In the rather unlikely event he tells you, and it works, problem solved. If not, then he'll remain cold and arrogant, which you say you like. Bending him to your will and turning him into your lap dog may just make him less desirable, rather than more. Could it be you just like a challenge? If so, you've got one. My suggestion would be to just enjoy it for what it is. Besides, if we all knew how to turn the hottest guy in Sao Paolo into our own personal BoyToy, we'd probably be down there doing it instead of sitting around here pontificating on an anonymous message board. Of course I may be wrong.

Plus they still have Alabama to look forward to!

Mostly white, though it can vary throughout the day.

In my opinion, the simplest question to the gobbling up of civil rights in the name of the 'war on terror' would be: Is there any liberty granted to any U. S. citizen that should not be taken away immediately if someone in the Federal government decides it interferes in any conceivable way with the 'war on terror' as defined at that moment by the someone doing the defining? So far, the answer to that question seems to be a resounding "No!". As far as I can tell, no one in government has stood in the way of this assault on individual freedom as it erodes before our eyes. I think the continuation of this process will lead, in very short order, to the elimination of guaranteed civil rights for every one of us. Could Osama Bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri have imagined, in their wildest dreams, that the destruction of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the rule of law could all have occurred within a single generation?

I expect that Victorian chair predated steam cleaning. One would probably have rung for a footman to give it the once over. Were AdamSmith still stuck, the lad might have given them both the once over.

stuck: past participle, past tense of stick (Verb) Verb Push a sharp or pointed object into or through (something): "he stuck his fork into the sausage". Although, when he said he was stuck in the Victorian era, I may have misinterpreted his use of the word.

Stuck in the Victorian era yet, AdamSmith wishes to be amused

Well, I sure hope OZ doesn't see this. With 26,000+ BoyToy members, each with an email address gayer than the last, even forty clothing company sales would put a million bucks in his pocket. Pick the right ones, and he'll tee us up for a level of sartorial splendor not seen since Quentin Crisp minced down Piccadilly on his way to the Villa Gianni.

OK! Ready or not!!!

Depending on how far the protesters are willing to take it, I'd bet they have a reasonable chance of prevailing over time. Is it nudity that the complainers complain about, or just genitals? Are nipples OK for men, but not for women? What if genitals are covered, but still apparent? And where, exactly, do genitals begin and end? Would Walmart have to hire compliance officers? How sheer is sheer? Most of all, I'd like to hear from the complainers. They apparently got a law passed but what, specifically, are they complaining about? Or do they just know it when they see it? I recall a dancer from the Nob Hill Theater stopping by the patio of a local watering hole. Someone asked him how much he showed in his act, and he showed us. As far as I know, no one complained.

The first duo and the guy with the duck could make a fan out of me! If they ever need someone to join them in the end zone, I am hereby offering my services. Yes, to this day I think, write, and speak MER. Kind of like the folks who still hail from Constantinople.

Sorry to see him go. He seems like such a nice man. . . . Yes and look, those boys follow him everywhere! . . . . . I wonder where he got those slippers? . . . . . . . It's on his card. OZ or something.

Happy Birthday to TownsendPLocke! From morning till night may it rock. Now for all of our sake Have a big piece of cake And a generous helping of cock!

Perhaps one of the reasons the Forbes article is so relatively serene is that it was written nearly three weeks ago, before the NTSB got its mitts on the innards of the miscreant battery. They've since confirmed 'thermal runaway' in at least three of the eight cells in the battery. Although the problem may have started in only one of the cells, Boeing's lead engineer had stated that 'protective circuitry' was in place to prevent problems from affecting more than one cell, and he was clearly wrong. It's easy to see why Boeing wanted to use lithium ion batteries, as they offer a couple of key advantages. First, relative to their size and weight, they put out a lot of power and this is important in a design where weight and space are at a premium. Second, they can be made up as flat, flexible 'pouches' and rolled or folded into a wide variety of sizes and shapes which is important when trying to stuff batteries into whatever nooks and crannies are available in a tightly packed airplane. But a key downside to lithium ion batteries, as Boeing, Sony, Lenovo and others have found to their misfortune is that, when an internal short develops, all hell breaks loose. This can take the form of a toasty laptop, molten plastic, or, in Boeing's case, 'spewing electrolytes'. Spewing Electrolytes, Batman! Will it ever fly? It seems that Boeing decided, back in 2005, to use cobalt oxide as the cathode in its lithium ion batteries, as it provided the highest power for the weight and size. While there are today safer materials, they will weigh more and, probably much more important, take up more space. And, since Boeing has designed its adjoining subsystems around the present battery, replacing it with one that's larger and heavier will almost certainly require a redesign of at least some of the surrounding subsystems to make room for a larger battery. And, if that's the case, a recall seems likely. Maybe an easier fix would be to put a safer, less powerful battery in the existing space and either make do, or supplement it with a secondary battery somewhere else. Maybe in the pilot's cup holder. In any event, as quoted in the article linked above, "[boeing] has formed teams consisting of hundreds of engineering and technical experts who are working around the clock with the sole focus of resolving the issue and returning the 787 fleet to flight status." As well they should.

Actually, I'd love to see this all fixed up and behind us sooner rather than later. My only horse in this race is to see whether or not I can define the problem correctly. As I said earlier, and probably too often, I think the problem has gone well beyond hardware issues, and is now a matter of navigating a regulatory and political system in which they have created embarrassment and mistrust. I expect Boeing is as skilled as anyone at doing this, but I doubt they have any idea how long it will take them, even after the hardware issues are run to ground. As you say, I am not only inclined to wait, but will probably take the liberty of remaining nearly supine.

Can't speak for everyone but, for me, it's because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the 787's lead engineer, Mike Sinnett, said that Boeing's system had "computerized controls" and "multiple layers of protection that it thought would keep the batteries from overheating and contain any problem". And the regulators bought it. This image, which is currently in the public domain, shows pretty clearly that Boeing thought wrong. According to this article in the New York Times, all eight cells in the charred battery sustained varying degrees of thermal damage. So, irrespective of what the 'experts' find in future weeks and months, there's clear evidence that Boeing has not successfully designed a battery that does not present a fire danger. Nor is it likely that the FAA will cut them much slack if they come back any time soon with an "All fixed now!" pronouncement. The Times article goes on to report that the very procedures the FAA uses to certify aircraft safety are now headed for a federal investigation and for Senate hearings. Again, there just does not appear to be anything the 'experts' can find that will cause the FAA to re-certify the 787 anytime soon. And, the longer it drags out, the more damage is done to the reputation of the aircraft, the reputation of the company, and perhaps the whole concept of massive outsourcing. If there could be something - anything - that the 'experts' could find to circumvent this process, I'd be delighted to hear it. All that said, if I were given the opportunity for a free trip in a 787 today, I'd take it. Either Bangkok or Rio would do. But I think it will be quite a long time before I'll have that opportunity. This has moved from the area of 'expert' findings to one of public perception and political cover. That's my admittedly non-expert opinion anyway and one which I would be only too happy to have proved wrong.

Indeed it is! Thanks for posting it.

I was once caught on camera during Freshman Weekend at a nearby community college. It was only a timely note from a doctor friend regarding the anguish of 'sudden leg cramp syndrome' that kept me off the evening news.

In fact, there is a recent thread on cultured foreskins here on this very site!

Well, I sure hope this thread doesn't turn into one of those. And there's a long-held belief that greater communication is a gateway to greater understanding. Some good input so far, and I'm glad that you yourself are up for getting linked. I'm still not sure if I'd like it or not. On the one hand, the more views the merrier. But then there's the benefit of keeping it all in the immediate family. Still hope OZ and others will weigh in.

Possibly for a smackdown between his butt and a peach.

Earlier, I made a post on the other site in a thread on the gun control issue. My views were very much informed by a couple of posts that AdamSmith made here a few days ago: one on How the gunmakers own the NRA and one on How the NRA went from pro-gun-control to where it is today. I read his posts, then the articles, then some more articles, did a bit of thinkin', and then a bit of postin', first there and then here. When I posted over there, my first impulse was to link to AdamSmith's threads over here. He had some things to say which were very insightful and would have been of benefit to the folks over there. But, while I praised the poster, and his posts, I decided not to use AdamSmith's screen name, nor to link to his threads. I'm not sure what the right thing to do is, so I'm asking you folks for your opinions. The first issue is whether or not OZ would appreciate a link coming from the other site over here. I've thought about this over the years. On the plus side, it could bring eyeballs from that site to this one and, not only eyeballs, but the same kind of eyeballs that OZ may seek to attract here. On the other hand, there may be a desire to keep to a minimum the cross-pollination, you should pardon the expression, between the two sites. It's really not my call to make. And the second issue is whether or not a poster here would appreciate being linked over there. As I said in my post, AdamSmith is an esteemed poster, and that is true on both sites. He might like folks over there to see something great he did over here. But what if he doesn't? If he wanted his posts to be seen over there, he could have decided to post in that thread. Again, it really didn't seem my call to make. So, I went with the conservative approach, and didn't link the threads. What would you all have done? It's not too late to go back and add the links in another post in that thread. But I'm not sure what's the etiquette for this sort of thing. Anyone have any thoughts?

AdamSmith, what a good article and what a good couple of posts you have made about the NRA recently! I read what you referenced and a bit more besides, and made a post on the other site in a gun-related thread that seemed to be petering out. Thanks to you, I hope it will get some new life. Here's a copy of the post I made over there. I hope it might help move the topic forward over here too. Haven't previously posted in this thread about the issue itself as it seemed like the same old debate with not much in the way of news, other than the latest mass killings that revive the discussion on an unfortunately rather predictable basis. However, thanks to an esteemed poster who started a couple of new threads on the other site, I personally have come across some info I didn't have before and it seems to point the way toward breaking the stalemate, if the politicians can only keep their attention focused on keeping more of their constituents alive. The first article cited by the poster outlines the late-seventies takeover of the NRA by a group of guns-for-all militants and their decision to spend liberally on Congressional lobbying and to move a re-interpreted version of the Second Amendment into the center of the political discussion. Warren Burger, the Nixon-appointed conservative U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, called it "one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word 'fraud' - on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." This began in 1977, and was the earlier of two major shifts in the role of the NRA in American politics. The second shift happened more recently, as the poster cites in another thread the same day, and it is a further takeover of the NRA by gun manufacturers. He links to a Mother Jones article that describes how the CEO of the company that makes the Bushmaster rifle used in the Newtown school shootings has inserted himself into the upper ranks of the NRA's 'Nominating Committee'. This is the group that decides who the candidates are going to be when members vote on the senior officers who will determine the NRA's official policy. As such, this individual whose day job it is to increase sales of high-powered weapons, gets an outsized voice in how the NRA spends its lobbying dollars. What's more, when the NRA speaks, it can also say that it speaks for four million members, although not only may the closely-held membership number be smaller, but only about 7% of them vote, and then only for the handpicked slate of candidates. This article also references a poll done last summer by GOP Frank Luntz which shows that rank-and-file NRA members overwhelmingly support background checks for all buyers, barring terror suspects from gun ownership, and required reporting of lost and stolen guns. These views by NRA members are in contrast with the NRA's official positions on these issues. What all this suggests to me is that a very few people, some of them industry insiders, are playing a very large role in the national debate on gun safety and control and are not only out of step with the American public but are also out of step with most of their organization's own members. In my opinion, the sooner our politicians wise up to this and start listening to the majority voices in the country and even in the NRA, the sooner they can start saving the lives of the folks who put them in office. And, if they don't, we are all going to be held hostage to a small group whose special interests are very different from our own.