lookin

Perhaps we could offer ourselves up as expert witnesses. If anyone can tell a good set of genitals from damaged ones, it's us.

A consummation devoutly to be wished, no doubt, but while we're waiting, it may just take us bozos to give the Feds the hotfoot they need to start scorching Boeing's vitals. And, in our defense, the experts aren't doing all that much better. According to this Forbes article, in spite of lithium-ion batteries' long history of burning up, the 787's lead engineer, Mike Sinnett said Boeing's system had "computerized controls" and "multiple layers of protection that it thought would keep the batteries from overheating and contain any problem." He managed to convince the regulators, and the rest is history. Those computerized controls offered tremendous promise. They would shut down the battery if it developed a problem and operate as a firewall that would stop a short in one of the battery’s eight cells from spreading to the other seven. What’s more, Boeing claimed, the 787′s pressurized air system would keep flames or smoke from the burning battery from getting into the passenger cabin. So much for the expert opinions. Apparently, Cessna replaced its lithium-ion batteries with safer nickel-cadmium batteries after a fire a year or so ago, but Boeing has convinced some 'experts' that the extra forty pounds and extra effort to switch to safer batteries would make the 787 commercially unviable. Well, that may be an expert's opinion, but it sure smells like bullshit to me. And bullshit just happens to be a field of expertise in which I'm prepared to go toe-to-toe with the very best in the business.

Array for Hollywood! That screwy, ballyhooey Hollywood! Where any office boy Or young mechanic Can be a panic .

Ah. At least I was allowed a few moments of wide-eyed optimism. Thanks for the effort. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go try to center myself.

OZ, it might be helpful if you asked the programmers themselves to test the fixes they made, so they can see whether or not they worked. For example, after they 'fix' the formatting issue, try it to see if they can now center an image. And, after they 'fix' the 'Show New Content' button, try it to see if all posters are still named 'Array' or if they have now reverted to their actual screen names. It might also be useful for you yourself to try the 'Show New Content' button and see what user name shows up for you. If TotallyOz shows up as expected, then it's most likely my issue alone. Right now, the highly welcome 'fixes' don't seem to be working for me, but that could be a result of a funky cache, an incompatible browser, user error, or some other self-inflicted wound and it may be up to me to take the appropriate action.

Now that was fun!

I certainly hope he'll send you back to us in one piece.

A Tel Aviv BoyToy named Nate Thought he lived on the Eurasian Plate. When he learned it's a fault, He exclaimed, Oy, gevalt! I should probably double my rate!

You're not only informed, but gracious and open-minded to a fault!

And the prison lobby. At $166 a night for a single bed in a bad neighborhood, they can afford to influence a lot of legislation. Plus, they have a built-in loyalty program and can even offer a weekend getaway to select customers.

Mebbe so but, in my book, anyone who can use 'pecksniffian' in a post is worth a second look. I had to look it up, but am I glad I did! I make no judgment, by the by, as to whether or not the word was used in fairness; merely that it was used at all.

Sounds like our Hi is in heat again. Time perhaps for an avatar change?

Well, I take it back. Just finished a post with everything looking just the way I wanted in 'Preview', made one small edit to the text, and all the formatting blew up. Centering no longer available, except for one line, and extra carriage returns inserted between all lines of text. If I tried to remove them manually, I lost font color in most lines. Tried fixing that, and lost centering entirely. And, as the 'Array' name is still with us in the 'New Content' view, it seems the recent bout with malware has left behind some fairly intractable collateral damage. I'll check back in a week or so and see if the programmers have managed to bandage the software's 'skin'. Without doing anything rash of course.

Make that 101 insults. I started watching the video, when a banner ad popped up inviting me to make a donation to Public Advocate so they could fight the powerful Homosexual Lobby. The organization has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and is headed up by a guy whom the Washington Post called 'a leader in the nation's anti-gay rights movement'. I don't know how ads get served up to individual viewers, though it's my understanding that they are targeted to specific audiences rather than just showing up randomly. I expect they would know I had clicked through to the video from a site named BoyToy, though why they thought that might make me a likely contributor to their organization eludes me at the moment.

Or is it?

To continue my admittedly imperfect analogy from earlier, if a runaway slave had returned and, instead of being beaten within an inch of his life, he was merely returned to the fields with a slap on the wrist, do you think he should have thanked his lucky stars and continued working till the day he died? This is not a straightforward case of right against wrong and Swartz did have mental health issues to contend with, and the federal prosecutor was no doubt a good son and took in many rescue animals, but the fact remains that fighting an unjust law is often no longer a case of standing in front of a judge and making a truthful and effective argument. As a result of Swartz's tragic action, this law and, hopefully, others like it may now get the public scrutiny it should have had before it was put on the books. Or it may not. The media and the public may decide the story has no legs, and continue to allow knowledge that should be in the public domain to remain locked behind firewalls, available only to folks with the cash to get at it. This is not the first time someone has sacrificed his or her life for a principle, or because of plain old exhaustion and, sadly, I expect it won't be the last.

I might have had stoner sex with a weatherman's son but my memories are cloudy.

I guess those runaway slaves should have stayed and faced the music too. Perhaps you have the resources to take on the Feds over a wrongheaded law, but most of us don't. Swartz was on his way either to jail or to financial catastrophe and very likely both. For the U. S. Attorney and the federal prosecutor, it was just another day at the office. A fair fight is one thing, but this was something else again.

Thanks. I do that over at Daddy's but here I try to read everything. I like to read all your posts, which can show up almost anywhere, and Lucky, when he's in town, is all over like a rash. And now that there are sixteen forums (!), peckering through them piecemeal for new posts would leave me clicking like a cheap pair of dentures. So the 'New Content' button seems to be my only option for now. I knew we were separated at birth! What made you change, if you don't mind my asking? When I was a kid, I always read from my least favorite to my most favorite. Sometimes a strip would head downhill, so it would get read earlier. It would take a long time until it got dropped from the list altogether. But I always ended with Peanuts in the Inquirer and Li'l Abner in the Bulletin. Also, just noticed that the formatting tools seem to be working again! One glitch down and one to go!

Thanks! I just did it.

And he, in turn, is pointing the finger back to the U. S. Attorney's office in Boston. May be he sees himself as the hired gun, with the U. S. Attorney setting policy. Though I expect it's the back room money-boys who are really setting policy. Reached at home, the prosecutor, Stephen Heymann, referred all questions to the spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston, Christina Dilorio-Sterling. She did not immediately respond to an email and phone message seeking comment. . . . As of Wednesday, the government took the position that any guilty plea by Swartz must include guilty pleas for all 13 charges and the possibility of jail time, Peters said. Otherwise the government would take the case to trial and seek a sentence of at least seven years. . . . JSTOR, one alleged victim, agreed with Peters that those terms were excessive, Peters said. JSTOR came over to Swartz's side after "he gave the stuff back to JSTOR, paid them to compensate for any inconveniences and apologized," Peters said. . . . For Swartz's family, the matter was clearer-cut, said Peters, his lawyer. "Our consistent response was, this case should be resolved in a way that doesn't destroy Aaron's life and takes into account who he really is, and what he was doing."

You wouldn't know it from the blatant highjacking, but I've been thinking a lot about the original question. When I first met my partner, he was just moving to the big city and I already had a good job. Even though I was already paying the rent and could handle food and entertainment for two, it was important to me that he find a job and help share expenses. Like the OP, I wanted a relationship where both of us contributed financially. In retrospect, I wish I had been less hidebound. We drifted apart after a few years and then got back together at a time when he wasn't able to work a regular forty-hour week. By then, I was earning more than I needed and had a much broader view of the different kinds of relationships that were possible. I was happy to cover things financially, as that was easy for me. And, for a period of time when it wasn't, he dipped into his savings to help with expenses. And he did a great job of making sure we were both having fun. Recently, I stayed with a couple of friends who have been together for a long time. One of the guys takes care of most of the expenses, while the other guy has created a beautiful home and makes sure there's a gourmet meal on the table every evening. Though I think it's possible to have an unhealthy relationship where one person is a giver and the other is a taker, I've come to the conclusion that there are a lot of healthy relationships where both partners give what they are best at and that financial contribution is only one small part of what makes a good partnership. It may be good to be wary until trust builds up in a relationship but, once that happens, I think that caring for one another, however that is shown, is by far the most important thing.

Right back atcha, Hi. The last time I saw so many softballs was when Coach moved me into Girl's P. E.

Why not start with an ad on Rentboy and take it from there?